4.cr appln 3582­10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3582 OF 2010 Prashant @ Bandu Bapu Lade .. Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra & Ano. .. Respondent Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b Mr. Kedar Patil for the Applicant Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for the State Mr. Nilesh S. Patil for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 30th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 and learned APP for the State. Respondent no. 2 - prosecutrix Sujata Ganpatrao Yelpale @ Sujata Prashant Lade is present before the Court. 2. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. The applicant is the original accused in Sessions Case No. 71 of 2009 pending before the Sessions Court, Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur. The said case pertains to C.R. No. 75 of 2008 of Sangola Police Station, Solapur and it is under Sections 363 and 366A of IPC. 1 4.cr appln 3582­10.doc 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2- prosecutrix stated that after lodging of FIR, the prosecutrix got married to applicant on 21.03.2009 and out of the said wedlock, she has a son by name Sai. Sai was born on 23rd March, 2010. The prosecturix has stated that she was never kidnapped by the applicant but on account of misunderstanding, the FIR came to be lodged. She is happily married to the applicant and residing with him along with her son. She has also filed affidavit to the said effect which is taken on record and marked X for identification in which respondent no.2- prosecutrix has stated that she has no objection to this Court quashing the FIR and proceedings relating thereto. 5 In a decision of the Supreme Court in 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 ovberburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more 2 4.cr appln 3582­10.doc 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 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 Ors. 2006 Cri.L.J.4591, it was 3 4.cr appln 3582­10.doc held that in case of parties amicably setting a matrimonial offence in exercise of inherent powers, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings. 8 Thus, in view of the above decisions and keeping in mind the fact that the case pertains to a case wherein now the husband is an accused and the wife is the complainant and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 9 In the result, FIR dated 06.03.2008 lodged at Sangola Police Station, Solapur at C.R. No. 75 of 2008 and proceedings relating thereto i.e. Sessions Case No. 71 of 2009 pending before the Sessions Court, Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur is quashed. 10. Petition is disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 4.cr appln 3582­10.doc 5