1 cr-wp-2425-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 2425 OF 2010 Gurfan Humayun Maniyar and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mrs. S.S.Gokhale Adv. for Petitioners Mr. O.A.Siddiqui Adv. with Ms. Shabhana Shah for Respondent No.2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, learned advocate for the respondents and the learned APP for the State 2 The petitioners are the original accused in Criminal Case No. 15/PW/.2006 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd 2 cr-wp-2425-10 Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The case pertains to CR No.256 of 2005 of Oshiwara Police Station. Petitioner no.1 was married to respondent no.2 in January, 2002. Petitioner nos.2 to 7 are the close relations of petitioner no.2. FIR came to be lodged by respondent no.2 against the petitioners under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC which is numbered as CR No. 256 of 2005 of Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the said FIR and proceedings relating thereto. 3 The learned advocate Mr. Siddiqui for the respondent no.2- wife states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and pursuant to the amicable settlement, the parties have agreed to have a divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, the parties entered into consent terms which have been annexed as Exhibit-B to this petition. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife states that in view of the amicable settlement, respondent no.2-wife has no objection to this Court quashing the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. He tendered affidavit of respondent no.2-wife to the above effect which has been taken on record and marked X for identification. 4 In a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Madan Mohan 3 cr-wp-2425-10 Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, it is observed as follows: "We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise... 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 4 cr-wp-2425-10 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 Ors. 2006 Cri.L.J.4591, it was held 5 cr-wp-2425-10 that matrimonial offence can be compounded by quashing criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers. 7 Thus, in view of the above decisions and keeping in mind the fact that the case pertains to a matrimonial dispute and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 8 In the result, FIR No.256 of 2005 of Oshiwara Police Station and proceedings relating thereto i.e. Case No. 15/PW/2006 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai, is quashed. 9 Petition is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]