1 cr­apln­4182&83­10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 4182 OF 2010 Chandrakant Ramkrishna Wankar & Ors. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ..... Mr. V.V.Purwant Adv. for applicants Smt.. A.A.mane APP for State Ms. Pratibha Borade Adv. for Respondent no.2 .... WITH CRI.APPLN. NO. 4183 OF 2010 Sheru A.Asif Qureshi and Ors. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Ms. Pratibha Borade Adv. for applicants Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 P.C.: 2 cr­apln­4182&83­10 1 The applicants in Cri. Application No. 4182 of 2010 have prayed for quashing of CR No. 180 of 2010 and applicants in Cri. Application No. 4183 of 2010 have prayed for quashing of CR No. 181 of 2010. Both the CRs. pertain to Faujdar Chawadi Police Station, Solapur and they are mainly under Section 307 of IPC. It is stated that both the said CRs. are cross cases registered by the parties against each other. In CR No.181 of 2010 Prasad Prakash Zunje who is the applicant no.2 in Application No. 4182 of 2010 is the complainant. In CR No.181 of 2010, applicant no.2 Prasad Zunje, applicant no.3 Ambadas Hiremath and applicant no.4 Rajshekhar Bichkunde in Cri. Application No. 4182 of 2010 are the injured persons. In CR No. 180 of 2010 applicant no.1 in Cri. Application No. 4183 of 2010 Sheru Qureshi is the complainant and in the said CR, he, applicant no.2 Mohsin, applicant no.4 Raju, applicant 5 Babbu and applicant no.16 Khajamma are the injured persons. 2 The learned counsel for the parties state that dispute between the complainants and injured persons in both the cases has been amicably settled and affidavits of the complainants as well as all injured persons to that effect have been filed before this Court wherein it is stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties 3 cr­apln­4182&83­10 and they have no objection to quashing of the cases. The said affidavits are taken on record and marked as `X-1 to X-8' for identification. 3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants 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. 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. 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 4 cr­apln­4182&83­10 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 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. 5 cr­apln­4182&83­10 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 two criminal complaints should not be quashed. Thus, in view of above decisions and in view of the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and in order to maintain amicable relations between the parties and peace in the locality, I am inclined to quash the said FIRs and proceedings relating thereto. 7 In the result, CR Nos.180 and 181 of 2010 of Faujdar Chawadi Police Station, Solapur and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. 8 Applications are allowed in above terms and disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]