1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4152 OF 2009 1. Shrimant S/o.Shripati Mundhe, Age-28 years, Occu-Legal Practitioner, 2. Suryakant S/o.Shripati Mundhe, Age-36 years, Occu-Business, 3. Rajesh @ Hanumant Shripati Mundhe, Age-33 years, Occu-Business, 4. Chandrakant S/o.Shripati Mundhe, Age-34 years, Occu-Business, Applicant no.1 to 4 are R/o.Plot No.34, Survey No.68, Jai Bhavani Nagar, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad 5. Babasaheb S/o.Kerba Rakh, Age-27 years, Occu-Business, 6. Smt.Surekha W/o.Babasaheb Rakh, Age-25 years, Occu-Household, Both R/o.Plot No.29, Survey No.68, Jai Bhavani Nagar, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad 7. Asha W/o.Suryakant Mundhe, Age-32 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Plot No.34, Survey No.68, Jai Bhavani Nagar, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS 2 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station In-Charge Officer, Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad 2. Siddheshwar Trimbak Waybase, Age-29 years, Occu-Private Service, R/o.Plot No.2, Parijat Nagar, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.S.P.Brahme, learned counsel for applicants, Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for State Smt.Renuka Ghule, learned counsel for respondent no.2. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4479 OF 2009 1. Siddheshwar S/o.Trimbak Waibhase, Age-28 years, Occu-Private Service, R/o.Plot No.2, Parijat Nagar, Aurangabad. 2. Gurunath S/o.Janardhan Kamble, Age-48 years, Occu-Govt. Service, 3. Ganesh S/o.Dhondiram Doiphode, Age-22 years, Occu-Education, 4. Rajendra S/o.Raosaheb Waibhase, Age-39 years, Occu-Private Service, 5. Vishnu S/o.Laxmanrao Ghule, Age-39 years, Occu-Govt.Contractor, 6. Dinesh S/o.Digambarrao Mundhe, Age-35 years, Occu-Private Business, Applicant No.2 to 6 are R/o. Jai Bhavani Nagar, CIDCO, N-3, Aurangabad APPLICANTS 3 VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Incharge Officer, Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad 2. Shrimanth Shripati Munde, Age-28 years, Occu-Legal Practitioner, R/o.Plot No.34, Survey No.68, Jaibhavani Nagar, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mrs.Renuka V.Ghule-Palve, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. Mr.S.P.Brahme, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 11/03/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Both these applications were filed by the respective applicants for quashing of FIR in CR No.39/2008 and CR No.40/2008, lodged by the respective complainants u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of the parties, both these applications are heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. As both these CR’s were registered by the respective 4 complainants against the applicants herein, about the incident which took place in the night of 12/10/2008, as the applicants in the first application tried to put their car in the parking, in Jaibhavani Nagar, which is a thickly populated area. Applicants in both the applications are relatives of each other. As on the triffling ground, i.e. on the point of whether the car to be parked at the particular place or not, quarrel took place between these two groups and each of the group filed complaints against the another group and on that basis, an offence came to be registered for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 143, 147, 149, 323, 336, 504 and 506 of IPC. 5. It appears that in the hit of anger out of the incident, both the parties have lodged complaints against each other. But now both the parties are cooled down and realized after taking rounds after rounds in the Court to fight for the alleged triffling quarrels that as the offences were registered due to mis-understanding and prestige issue, they have settled their dispute out of Court, but as the offences for which the complaints were lodged, some of the offences like 143, 147, 149, 336 of IPC are not compoundable even with the permission of Court u/s. 320(1)(b) of The Cr.P.C. Now they have approached this Court to quash the FIR lodged against each other. During the course of submissions across the bar, my attention is drawn towards the rule given by the Apex Court in the matter of V.S.Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another, wherein the question was before the Apex Court about quashing of criminal proceedings of the FIR or complaint in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court 5 in the offences, which are not compoundable due to bar u/s. 320 of The Cr.P.C., would not be a bar to exercise the power of quashing, as if there is every likelihood that as the parties have settled their dispute out of Court and chances of conviction are not there, in such cases, under the inherent powers, the High Court to allow to quash and set aside the FIR. In the case in hand, the parties are sailing in the same boat as even though it can not be disputed that some incident has occurred, for which these cross complaints were lodged by the close relatives, but now they have realized their mis- understanding and not to wish to prosecute with the complaints which they have lodged. In the premise, it is urged on behalf of counsels in both the applications that under the exercise of inherent powers u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C., this FIR to be quashed and set aside. After going through the respective complaints, on the basis of which CR No.39/2008 and CR No.40/2008 were registered, appears to be a incident of stone pelting and the alleged unlawful assembly of two groups where the family members and relatives of each other i.e. only on the issue, whether to allow to park the car or not. Considering this dispute between the parties, it is addressed to the Court that the issue of dispute is triffling, but because of the legal bar that the parties can not compromise the matter in such offences, the FIR to be quashed and set aside. Considering these aspects, FIR and further proceedings in CR No.39/2008 and 40/2008 are liable to be quashed and set aside. As the parties have settled their dispute out of court, learned APP also have no objection to allow it. 6 6. In the premise, FIR and further proceedings in CR No.39/2008 as well as CR No.40/2008, registered in Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad and the charge sheet filed and numbered as RCC No. 692/2008 and RCC No.639/2008 are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is thus made absolute as indicated above. 8. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR 2010/cri.appl.4152-09