2.cr wp 2485-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2485 OF 2010 Vikas Sharadkumar Chatpar & Ano. .. Petitioners Vs Hiya Vikas Chatpar @ Anju Chandnani & Ano .. Respondents Mr. Mahesh Vaswani for the Petitioners Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State Mr. Abhijeet Mahadeokar for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and the learned APP for the State. Respondent No. 1 is present in person. 2 Petitioner No. 1 was married to respondent no.1. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of Petitioner No. 1. Thereafter, matrimonial dispute arose between respondent no. 1 and the petitioners. On account of this dispute, FIR came to be lodged by respondent no.1 against the petitioners at Bandra Police Station, Mumbai which was numbered as CR No. 371 of 2005. The said case is under Sections 498(A) read with 34 of IPC. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the 1 2.cr wp 2485-10.doc said FIR and the proceedings relating thereto being C.C.No. 294/PW/2006 which is pending before the 9th, M.M. Court, Bandra, Mumbai. 3 The learned advocate for the respondent no.1 states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the parties have tendered consent terms in this Court in M.J. Petition No. C-32 of 2006 and M.J. Petition No. A-12 of 2007 at the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. In the consent terms it is specifically provided that the respondent no.1 would withdraw the criminal case which she had filed against the petitioners hence, learned advocate for respondent no.1 states that the case be 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 overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that 2 2.cr wp 2485-10.doc 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". 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. 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. 6 In a decision of this Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad and others, 2006 Cri.L.J. 459, it 3 2.cr wp 2485-10.doc 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. 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions, in view of amicable settlement between the parties and the consent terms filed before the Family Court at Bandra, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. 8 C.R.No. 371 of 2005 of Bandra Police Station Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C.No. 294/PW/2006 which is pending before the learned 9th M.M. Court, Bandra, Mumbai, is quashed. 9 Application is disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 2.cr wp 2485-10.doc 5