3.cr wp 1860-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1860 OF 2010 Sachin Tarsemchand Kansal & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr. R.R. Verma i/b Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioners Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat for Respondent no. 2 Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 2 original complainant is present in person. 2. This petition is filed for quashing the FIR lodged by respondent no. 2 against petitioners being M.C.R. No. 1 of 2010 of Mulund Police Station. It is for the offence punishable under sections 420, 120(B) read with 34 of IPC. 3. Respondent No.2 who is present in the Court stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the case be quashed. He has also filed his 1 3.cr wp 1860-10.doc affidavit, stating therein that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. 4. In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, it is observed as follows: "We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly over burdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law". 5 In a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in 1977 Cr.L.J. 1125 the Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and observed that in exercise of the wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes 2 3.cr wp 1860-10.doc to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The Supreme Court further observed that this power is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 6. The ratio of above judgments squarely applies to the present case. In view of the above judgments, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why the criminal complaint filed by respondent no. 2 should not be quashed. Thus, in view of above decisions and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. 7. In the result, M.C.R. No. 1 of 2010 of Mulund Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. 8. Application is disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3 3.cr wp 1860-10.doc 4