1 cr-apln-4411-4412-10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 4411 OF 2010 Mr. Mohammed Ali Ismail Sayed & Ors. ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal Adv. for applicants Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... WITH CRI. APPLN. NO. 4412 OF 2010 Mr. Mohammed Ali Khalid Sayed and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents .... Smt. Sharmila Kaushik Adv. for applicants Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 04, 2010 P.C.: 2 cr-apln-4411-4412-10.doc 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. Complainants, all the injured witnesses and the accused persons in both cases are present. 2 The applicants-original accused nos.1 to 4 in Cri. Application No. 4411 of 2010 are seeking quashing of CR No. 279 of 2010 which has been registered against them at Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai for the offence under Section 326 r.w. 34 of IPC. CR No. 279 of 2010 has been lodged at the instance of Mohd. Ali Khalid Sayed who is Respondent No.2 in this application and applicant no.1 in Cri. Application No. 4412 of 2010. Applicant No.1 and applicant no.3 in Cri. Application No. 4412 of 2010 are the injured persons in CR No. 279 of 2010. 3 Applicants in Cri. Application No. 4412 of 2010 are seeking quashing of CR No. 280 of 2010 wherein they are accused. CR No. 280 of 2010 has been lodged at the instance of Respondent no.2 in Cri. Application No. 4412 of 2010 who is applicant no.2 in Cri. Application No. 4411. He is the only injured person in the said case. The said case is under Sections 324 r.w. 34 of IPC. Both the cases pertain to Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai and they are cross cases. 4 Both the cases pertain to an incident which occurred in the afternoon of 7.8.2010. The incident took place as the 3 cr-apln-4411-4412-10.doc motor cycle driven by respondent no.2 in Cri. Application No. 4411 of 2010 (applicant no.1 in Cri. Application No. 4412 of 2010) gave a dash to the car driven by applicant no.1 in Cri. Application No. 4411 of 2010. On account of the said dash, both sides assaulted each other. 5 Complainants in both cases are present before the Court and they have stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, hence, the cases lodged by them be quashed. Affidavits of the complainants to the above effect, are tendered in Court which are taken on record and marked `X' for identification. Not only the complainants but the injured witnesses also state that as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, they do not wish to proceed with the case. They have also tendered affidavits to the above effect. As far as CR No. 279 of 2010 is concerned, on perusal of the medical certificates, it does not appear that case under Section 326 of IPC is made out. 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 4 cr-apln-4411-4412-10.doc 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 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 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash both the CRs. and the proceedings relating thereto. 5 cr-apln-4411-4412-10.doc 9 C.R.Nos. 279 and 280 of 2010 of Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto, are quashed. 10 Applications disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]