5.cr appln 3500-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3500 OF 2010 Ratankumar Ranaware .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Sooraj Hulke for the Applicant Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER,2010. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 1- original complainant is present in person. 2 The applicant-original accused is seeking quashing of C.R.No. I-22 of 2010 of Murbad Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto being Sessions Case No.150 of 2010 which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan 3. Respondent no. 2 was married to the applicant. Thereafter, some dispute arise between the parties, hence respondent no. 2 went to reside with her parents. She also 1 5.cr appln 3500-10.doc filed application for maintenance in the Court at Murbad. On 4th February 2010, when she was returning back from the Murbad Court, at that time, her husband and son came near her on motorcycle. Her husband gave her kick due to which she fell and she sustained injuries. Hence, she lodged FIR at Murbad Police Station which was numbered as I-22 of 2010. The case is under Sections 308, 325 and 323 of IPC. 4. Respondent No.2 who is present in the Court states that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the case be quashed. She also filed consent terms to that effect. Further Respondent no. 2 states that today she has received a demand draft bearing no. 836631 dated 28th September 2010 drawn in her favour on Bank of Maharasthra, Kopargaon Branch in the sum of Rs. 49,000/- and cash amount of Rs. 1000/- from the Applicant. The applicant has also filed an undertaking in this Court that he will provide monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to respondent no. 2 throughout her life on or before 10th day of every month. The undertaking given by the applicant is accepted and marked 'X' for identification. 5. 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: 2 5.cr appln 3500-10.doc "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 over burdened 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". 6 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 3 5.cr appln 3500-10.doc degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 7. The ratio of above judgments squarely applies to the present case. In view of the above decisions, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why the criminal complaint filed by respondent no. 2 should not be quashed. Thus, in view of above decisions and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. 8. In the result, C.R. No. I-22 of 2010 of Murbad Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions Case No. 150 of 2010 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan are quashed. 9. Application is disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 5.cr appln 3500-10.doc 5