19. cr appln 832-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 832 OF 2010 Umesh S/o. Jai Tekwani .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Applicant Ms. S.M. Poddar for Respondent No. 2 Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 27th SEPTEMBER,2010. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant-original accused, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-original complainant and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant has preferred this application for quashing of FIR being MECR No. 12 of 2009 of Nagpada Police Station. The said case is under Sections 406, 420, 506(II) read with 34 of IPC. 3. The learned advocate for respondent no.2-complainant states that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicant and respondent no. 2 and the complainant does not 1 19. cr appln 832-10.doc wish to proceed with the case. Hence, he prayed that the FIR be quashed. Respondent No. 2-original complainant has also filed affidavit to the said effect. 4. 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 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". 5 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 2 19. cr appln 832-10.doc 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. 6. The ratio of above judgments squarely applies to the present case. In view of the above decisions, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why the criminal complaint filed by respondent no.2-original complainant 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. Hence, Criminal Application is allowed. 7. In the result, FIR being MECR No. 12 of 2009 of Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai is quashed. 8. Application is disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3 19. cr appln 832-10.doc 4