21.cr appln 3721-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3721 OF 2010 Vishal Vishnu Kapse & Ors .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ano. .. Respondents Ms. Pranali Kakade i/b Mr. Subhash Hulyalkar for Applicants Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for the State Mr. Shashi Kumar Pandey for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 2 original complainant is present in person. 2. This application is filed by the applicants for quashing the FIR lodged by respondent no. 2 against them being C.R. No. 193 of 2007 of Talegaon Dabhade Police Station. It is for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 of IPC and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act. It pertains to Sessions Case No. 945 of 2009 and it is pending now before the Sessions Court, Pune. 1 21.cr appln 3721-10.doc 3. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and he has stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. He has also filed his affidavit, stating therein that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 who is present in the court has reiterated that the affidavit dated 20th August, 2010 is filed by him. 4. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original complainant stated that both the complainant as well as the accused run brick factories which are adjacent to each other. On account of some dispute, there was a free fight and cross complaints came to be lodged. It is stated that both the sides have amicably settled the disputes and in order to maintain cordial relations and peace between two parties as well as in the area, the FIR and proceedings relating thereto be quashed. Affidavit to that effect is already filed by respondent no. 2 - original complainant. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and respondent no. 2 invited my attention to various orders passed by this Court wherein this Court after recording the consent given by the complainant was pleased to quash and set aside the complaint. My attention was invited to the order dated 29th January, 2010 passed by this Court in 2 21.cr appln 3721-10.doc Criminal Application No. 4112 of 2008 in the case of Prabhu Uttamchand Jodhwani Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Coram: Smt. R.P. Sondur Baldota J.), Order dated 11th October, 2009 in Criminal Application No. 4419 of 2009 in the case of Mrs. Pratibha Jayraj Kamble and Anr. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ( Coram : Mr. S.A. Bobade, J ). It was pointed out that in the below mentioned two cases, FIR under Section 307 and the proceedings came to be quashed. In Sou. Nisha Sanjay Goswami Vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2004 All.M.R. (Cri) Pg 2183, offence under Sections 142, 147,307 and 323 of the IPC was quashed. So also, in Criminal Application No. 2172 of 2009, Santosh Kaluram Landge & Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors, this Court [ Coram : Mr. B.R. Gavai, J] by order dated 4th March 2010, quashed the FIR and proceedings in a case under Section 307 of IPC. 6. 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 3 21.cr appln 3721-10.doc 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". 7 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. 8. The ratio of above judgments squarely applies to the present case. In view of the catena of judgments, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why the criminal complaint 4 21.cr appln 3721-10.doc 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. Hence, Criminal Application is allowed. 9. In the result, C.R. No. 193 of 2007 of Talegaon-Dabhade Police Station, Pune and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions Case No. 945 of 2009 pending before the Sessions Court, Pune is quashed. 10 Application is disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 5 21.cr appln 3721-10.doc 6