1 cr-wp-1304-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 1304 OF 2010 Pramod V.Baria & Anrs. ..Petitioners Vs. Mrs.Solonee Pramod Baria and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.G.C.Singh Adv. for Petitioners Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for State Mr.Shriniwas C.Singh Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and the learned APP for the State. The respondent no.1-wife is present in person. 2 The petitioner no.1 was married to respondent no.1. FIR was lodged by respondent no.1 against the petitioner and his family members. The said FIR was numbered as 174 of 2000 of Malad Police 2 cr-wp-1304-10 Station Mumbai. The said case is under Section 498-A of IPC. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and filed the consent terms in the Family Court, hence, he has prayed that the FIR and proceedings relating thereto be quashed. 4 In a decision of the Supreme Court in 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 ovberburdened 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". 3 cr-wp-1304-10 5 In the said case, application was filed for quashing of FIR under various sections including 406 of IPC and on account of compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, the said case came to be quashed. 6 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 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. 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. 4 cr-wp-1304-10 8 In the result, FIR No. 174 of 2000 of Malad Police Station Mumbai and C.C.No. 512/P/2000 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, is quashed. 9 Petition is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]