1 cr-wp-2421-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P.. NO. 2421 OF 2010 Mr. Sharad Ratnakar Pal ..Petitioner Vs. Mr. Sidharth Verma and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. A.M.Saraogi Adv. for Petitioner Mr.Nagesh Mishra Adv. for respondent nos.1,2 and 3 Smt.M.M.Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and the learned APP for the State. The petitioner is present. Mr.Anil Shrikrishnalal Chaddha father of the respondent no.3 is also present. 2 The petitioner is the first informant in CR No.236 of 2010 of Bangur Nagar Police Station, Pune. The said case is under Section 379 read with section 34 of IPC. Respondent nos.1 to 3 are the accused in this case. Mr. Anil Chaddha father of respondent no.3 is the first informant in C.R.No. 209 of 2010 of Bangur Nagar Police Station in 2 cr-wp-2421-10 which the petitioner as well as respondent nos.4 and 5 are accused. The said case is under Sections 326, 341, 506-II, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3 It is an admitted fact that respondent nos.1 to 3 are all minors. The learned APP has verified this fact from Mr. Anant Dange A.P.I. who is present before this Court in connection with CR No. 209 of 2010. 4 The petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of both the aforesaid FIRs and proceedings relating thereto. He has stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. He has further stated that the parties are residents of the same building and are infact neighbours. He submitted that the dispute arose on account of some misunderstanding due to which, FIRs came to be filed. Affidavits to that effect have been tendered stating that the matter has been amicably settled and they have no objection to quashing of FIR No.209 of 2010 which has been initiated on the information given by respondent no.3. The said affidavits are taken on record and marked `X ’ collectively for identification. 5 In a decision of the Supreme Court in case of 3 cr-wp-2421-10 Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, it is observed as follows: “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 ovberburdened 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". In the said case, application was filed for quashing of FIR under various sections including 406 of IPC and on account of compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused, the said case came to be quashed. 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 4 cr-wp-2421-10 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 if designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 7 In view of the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in order to maintain peace and harmony in the building as well as in the locality, I am inclined to quash the two FIRs. Hence, the following order is passed. 8 FIR Nos. 236 of 2010 and 209 of 2010 of Bangur Nagar Police Station, Pune and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. 9 Petition is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]