1 cr-apln-3955-10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3955 OF 2010 Tabrej Imbrahim Khande & Ors .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Sachin V.Dhakephalkar Adv. for Applicants Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State. Respondent no.2-complainant and his brothers are present before this Court. 2. This application is filed by the applicants for quashing the FIR i.e. CR No. I-77 of 2010 of Shantinagar Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions Case No. 233 of 2010 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. 3. On 16.3.2010 the complainant and his brothers Irfan and Shadab were assaulted by the applicants, hence, CR No.I-77 2 cr-apln-3955-10.doc of 2010 came to be registered with Shantinagar Police Station. The said CR is under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC. The complainant has stated that on account of some misunderstanding the incident occurred and the same was reported by him to the police. 4. Respondent No.2 and his brothers Irfan and Shadab who were injured in the incident are present in the Court and they have stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, hence, the case be quashed. 5. On going through the FIR and the statement of injured, it is noticed that the case of the complainant and witnesses is that the complainant and his brothers were assaulted with chopper. The complainant has specifically stated that he was assaulted with chopper on the head. On persual of the injury certificate issued by Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation dated 16.3.2010, it shows that the complainant has sustained only one injury i.e. contusion on left side of forehead. This is not consistent with what is stated by him in the FIR. As far as FIR is concerned, he seems to have sustained only one incised wound. Thus, the medical certificate of the complainant is not consistent with the case put forward by him in the FIR. 3 cr-apln-3955-10.doc 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants invited my attention to various orders passed by this Court wherein this Court after recording the consent given by the complainant was pleased to quash and set aside the complaint. My attention was invited to the order dated 29th January, 2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 4112 of 2008 in the case of Prabhu Uttamchand Jodhwani Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Coram: Smt. R.P. Sondur Baldota J.), Order dated 11th October, 2009 in Criminal Application No. 4419 of 2009 in the case of Mrs. Pratibha Jayraj Kamble and Anr. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ( Coram : Mr. S.A. Bobade, J ). It was pointed out that in the below mentioned two cases, FIR under Section 307 and the proceedings came to be quashed. In Sou. Nisha Sanjay Goswami Vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2004 All.M.R. (Cri) Pg 2183, offence under Sections 142, 147,307 and 323 of the IPC was quashed. So also, in Criminal Application No. 2172 of 2009, Santosh Kaluram Landge & Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors, this Court [ Coram : Mr. B.R. Gavai, J] by order dated 4th March 2010, quashed the FIR and proceedings in a case under Section 307 of IPC. 7. 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: "We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable 4 cr-apln-3955-10.doc 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". 8 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 degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 9. The ratio of above judgments squarely applies to the 5 cr-apln-3955-10.doc present case. In view of the above judgments, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why the FIR lodged 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. Hence, Criminal Application is allowed. 10. In the result, C.R. No. I-77 of 2010 of Shantinagar Police Station, Bhiwandi and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions Case No. 233 of 2010 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane is quashed. 11. Application is disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]