2.cr appln 3904-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3904 OF 2010 Arpit Dilip Doshi & Ors .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Ms. Mallika Ingale for the Applicants Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State Mr. Sunil Shukla for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicants, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 2 is present in person. 2. The applicants are seeking quashing of the said FIR and the proceedings relating thereto being C.C.No. 478/PW/2008 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali. 3 Respondent no. 2-original complainant was married to applicant no. 1. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of applicant no. 1. After the marriage, some matrimonial 1 2.cr appln 3904-10.doc dispute arose between the parties. On account of this dispute, FIR came to be lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicants at Kandivali Police Station which was numbered as 342 of 2007. It is for the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506(2) read with 34 of IPC. 4. The learned advocate for respondent no. 2 states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, hence, the case be quashed. Respondent no. 2 is present in person. She states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and she has no objection if the FIR and proceedings relating thereto are quashed. She has also tendered affidavit to the above effect which is taken on record. She has further stated that Matrimonial Petition No. 5171 of 2010 was filed by her before the Family Court, Bandra wherein the parties sought divorce by mutual consent. In the said proceedings, she and applicant no. 1 filed consent terms before the Family Court, Bandra. 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: "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 2 2.cr appln 3904-10.doc 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". 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 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 3 2.cr appln 3904-10.doc 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. 7 In a decision of this Court in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Smt. Anupama P. Gaikwad and others, 2006 Cri.L.J. 459, it was held that in a case of matrimonial offence, if there is an amicable settlement criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court, in exercise of inherent powers. 8 Thus, in view of the above decisions, in view of amicable settlement between the parties and the affidavit tendered by respondent no. 2 in this Court, I am inclined to quash the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto. 9 C.R. No. 342 of 2007 of Kandivali Police Station Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto i.e. C.C.No. 478/PW/2008 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali is quashed. 10. Application is disposed of in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 2.cr appln 3904-10.doc 5