VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 546 OF 2008 Dhondu Tanu Mhagaonkar Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Sorankar, for the Petitioner. Mrs. V. R. Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 7, 2008. PC :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. In the present case the petitioners are accused in C.R. No.16 of 2006, registered with Lokamanya Tilak Marg Police Station, Thane for the offence puninshable under section 465, 467 and 471 read with section 120-B of I.P.C. During pendency of the proceedings, petitioners filed civil suit bearing R.A.D. Suit No. 406 of 2006 in the Small Causes Court at Bombay, wherein the parties filed consent terms, upon which a decree has been passed in terms of - 2 - said consent terms. It appears that C.C. No.117 of 2006 and FIR No. 16 of 2006 are the only matters pending between the parties. The defendant No.1 and the plaintiff had agreed to withdraw the case. The consent terms were accepted and the suit was disposed of accordingly. 3. The petitioner has now come before this Court considering the fact that the offences are non compoundable and the complainant should take steps to withdraw the complaint. Considering the fact that the offences are non compoundable, it would not be open to the learned Magistrate to have compounded the offences. However, in our opinion that would not preclude this Court in the exercise of its powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Jagdish Chanana & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Jagdish Chanana & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1299 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1299 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1299 has observed as under - "In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is purely personal one and no public policy is - 3 - involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise." . Similarly a Full Bench of this Court in a case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra AND AND AND Ashwini Abasaheb Honmane Ashwini Abasaheb Honmane Ashwini Abasaheb Honmane reported in 2008 ALL MR 2008 ALL MR 2008 ALL MR (Cri) (Cri) (Cri) 952 952 952 has held that- "Neither an offence under section 498-A nor any other offence under the IPC which is not specifically enumerated in Section 320 of the Code can be compounded by the court in exercise of its powers under section 320 and for that matter by High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code." 4. Considering the facts of the case and the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagadish Jagadish Jagadish Chanana & Ors (Supra) Chanana & Ors (Supra) Chanana & Ors (Supra) there is no likelihood of the prosecution succeeding in the matter. The offences are otherwise purely personal one and no public element is involved; and as such it will be - 4 - futile exercise to continue with the proceedings. We therefore, quash and set aside FIR No. 16 of 2006, registered with Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Police Station Thane. Rule made absolute accordingly. No orders as to costs Sd/- Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.] [ F.I. REBELLO, J.]