1 cr wp 2621-09.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2621 OF 2009 Amitkumar Chandrakant Inamdar & Ors .. Petitioners Vs Anjali Amitkumar Inamdar & Anr .. Respondents Mr. R.S. Darandale i/b Mr. Pankaj Das for the Petitioners Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite for Respondent No. 1 Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 29th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners-original accused, learned advocate for respondent no. 1-original complainant and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 1-original complainant is present. 2 The petitioners are seeking quashing of CC NO. 60/SW/2009 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. 3. Respondent no. 1 was married to petitioner no.1. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, 1 1 cr wp 2621-09.doc petitioner no. 3 is brother of petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 4 is the wife of petitioner no. 3 and petitioner no. 5 is brother of petitioner no. 1. Thereafter, matrimonial dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent no. 1. On account of this dispute, private complaint came to be lodged by respondent no.1 against the applicants before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai which is numbered as CC NO. 60/SW/2009. The said case is under Sections 498(A) read with 34 of IPC. 4 The learned advocate for respondent no. 1 states that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and respondent no. 1, hence the complaint be quashed. Respondent no.1 who is present in the Court states that the matter has been amicably settled between her and the petitioners, hence the complaint be quashed. She has also filed affidavit stating therein that she has no objection to quash the complaint filed by her. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 5. 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 2 1 cr wp 2621-09.doc 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". 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. 3 1 cr wp 2621-09.doc 7 In a decision of this Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad and others, 2006 Cri.L.J. 459, it was held that in a case of matrimonial offence, if there is an amicable settlement criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of inherent powers. 8 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the complaint. 9 C.C. NO. 60/SW/2009 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai is quashed. 10. Application disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 1 cr wp 2621-09.doc 5