Ndm 1 wp.2129.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2009 Parshuram Panta Reddy. ... PETITIONER Vs. Mohd. Iqbal Hajimiya Shaikh and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------------- Mr. C.K. Tripathi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for State. -------------- CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 23 rd September, 2009. P.C. 1 By this Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR registered vide CR No.139 / 2004 and the incidental proceedings, if any, arising out of the same. The Respondent No.1 ( Mohd. Iqbal) lodged the FIR with Sakinaka Police Station alleging that the Petitioner committed criminal trespass in her flat premises, occupied by him on rental basis. He alleged that in the night between the 13 th and 14 th April, 2009, the petitioner broke open the lock of the shop premises and thereafter, Ndm 2 wp.2129.09.sxw removed the articles kept therein. The articles were thrown outside the shop. When inquired, he told that the complainant – respondent No.1 to do whatever he wanted to do. Consequently, the Respondent No.1 lodged the FIR with the Sakinaka Police Station. 2 Heard learned counsel Mr. C.K.Tripathi for the Petitioner and learned APP for the State. 3 The learned counsel submits that the disputes filed by the petitioner and the Respondent No.1 against each other have been compromised. He would point out that the Respondent No.1 was present in person on last occasion and has filed affidavit to the effect that he does not want to proceed with the criminal complaint. The Respondent No.1 has given no objection for quashing of the criminal complaint vide the affidavit dated 14 th September, 2009. In view of the statement of the learned counsel and the contents of the affidavit, it is amply clear that the Respondent No.1 may not support further investigation or the prosecution, if at all the investigation will culminate into the prosecution. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse the Ndm 3 wp.2129.09.sxw process of the Court. The judicial time of the Court is likely to be wasted. The time of the police machinery is also likely to be wasted if the FIR stands as it is. 4 Considering this aspect, it is in the interest of justice to quash the FIR. It may be mentioned that the learned APP objected for grant of the relief on the ground that the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable. 5 The objection raised at by the learned APP is unsustainable. The Apex Court in “B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another” (2003) 4 SCC 675 held that the inherent powers may be exercised in an appropriate situation. It will meet the end of justice, if quashing of FIR is permitted under the circumstances. 6 Hence the petition is allowed to impugned FIR registered vide CR No.139 / 2004 at Sakinaka Police Station is quashed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR, J ]