1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1769 OF 2010 Jigna Kanaylal Shah ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.S.V. Marwadi for the Petitioner. Ms.Kamini Ingle for Respondent No.2. Mr.J.P. Kharge, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 29, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for respondent no.2. 2 This petition has been filed for quashing proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide C.R.No. 297/2010 registered with the Andheri Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 of the IPC and also under Section 134(A)and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2 3 Respondent no.2 - original complainant has filed an affidavit in which he has stated that he has received all his medical expenses and that he has no objection if the said complaint is quashed. Respondent no.2 is present in court and he reiterates whatever he has stated in the affidavit in reply. 4 Prosecution case is that the complainant was standing on the road and at that time, one car came from the Andheri station and left tyre of the car passed over his leg as a result of which he received injuries and he had to be admitted in the hospital. Section 338 of the IPC is a compoundable offence. Section 279, however, is not compoundable and therefore, the parties have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5 Since the parties have settled the dispute and the respondent no.2 has no grievance against the 3 present petitioner, in my view, it will be appropriate if the said complaint is quashed, particularly, because the petitioner has awarded medical treatment and also has incurred the medical expenses for the treatment given to respondent no.2. The injury suffered by the respondent also is a minor one. I have perused the complaint. There is no allegation in the complaint that the applicant was driving in a rash and negligent manner. This being the position, prima facie, it does appear that even otherwise, provisions of Section 279 are not attracted even if the complaint is ready as a whole. Under these circumstances, therefore, since the complaint is purely of a personal nature, there is no reason why this court should not quash the complaint when the parties have now amicably settled the dispute. The Apex Court as well as this Court in several cases has held that in the case of personal dispute, the High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 for quashing the complaint if there is no element of injury to the public at 4 large. In the present case, there is no averment in the complaint that the applicant was driving in a rash and negligent manner. 6 Under the circumstances, therefore, the complaint registered against the petitioner vide C.R.No.297/2010 registered with the Andheri Police Station is quashed and set aside. 7 Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.)