1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1849 OF 2010 (Vishnu Rajnyaji Wankhede and others .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.S. Nayak, Advocate for the applicant No.1. Shri D.M. Kale, APP for the respondent No.1/State. Shri P.S. Sakhare, Advocate for the non-applicant Nos.2 to 6. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 14TH JANUARY, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By way of present application, the applicant No.1 prays for quashing of First Information Report No. 64/2009 dated 15.03.2009 punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act filed by the applicant No.1 against the non- applicant Nos.2 to 6 before the non-applicant No.1 and for quashing further proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 1976 of 2009 (State .v. Jaggu and others) under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur arising out of the FIR No.64/2009 dated 15.03.2009. The facts in brief giving rise to filing of the present application are as under :- On 15.03.2009, at about 05:15 p.m., when the applicant returned to his home after attending his duties saw that the crowd was gathered in front of the courtyard of his house. On enquiry, it was revealed that there was a quarrel between his family members and the family members of Yadav. Yadav family is neighbouring family of the applicant No.1. The quarrel resulted into heated exchange of words, abuses and assault. The quarrel initiated on a petty reason i.e. goat of Ramdeo Yadav entered the house of the 2 applicant No.1 followed by the dog of applicant No.1. Ramdev Yadav threw a stone on the dog which hit the leg of brother of applicant No.1 and thus the quarrel started. The FIR is placed on record as “Annexure-A”. On receiving FIR, investigation was carried out resulting into filing of the charge sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. Shri R.S. Nayak, the learned Counsel for the applicant No.1 submitted that though at the initial period the passions were running high and the parties were hot tempered, the FIR came to be lodged by the applicant No.1 and in counter to the report, the non-applicant Nos.2 to 6 also lodged FIR against the applicant No. 1 and others. The learned Counsel further submitted that the family of the applicant No.1 and the family of the non-applicant Nos.2 to 6 are neighbours and the relations between the families are cordial. On occasions, the parties used to attend the family functions organized by each other and extend their cooperation whenever required. He further submitted that the parties did not want to keep their relations strain because of the FIR lodged against each other on a petty quarrel. The learned Counsel further submitted that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. They have also understood that being neighbours and having the good relations in past, keeping the criminal proceedings pending against each other, is of no consequence and the better sense is prevailed over the parties to forget the grievances against each other and lead peaceful and happy live as good neighbours. Shri P.S. Sakhare, the learned Counsel for the non- applicant Nos.2 to 6 submitted that the non-applicant Nos.2 to 6 are also willing to lead their life with the family of the applicant No.1 amicable and peacefully. The non-applicant Nos.2 to 6 are present in the Court. They have also filed affidavit-in-reply expressing their willingness to agree with the terms stated in the affidavit and having no objection for the prayer made by the applicant No.1. Shri R.S. Nayak, the learned Counsel for the applicant No.1 has placed reliance on the various judgments of the Apex 3 Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot .v. State of Punjab (reported in AIR 2008 SC 1969); Manoj and another .v. State of Madhya Pradesh (reported in 2009 Cri.L.J., 344); Hari Singh Gond .v. State of M.P. (reported in 2009 Cril.L.J., 346) and this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Dr. Sujoy Das Arjunkumar Das .v. State through Public Prosecutor (reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 993); Sanjay Vithalrao Bhadre .v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1001); Anjusingh Pramodsingh Rajput .v. State of Maharashtra and another (reported in III (2009) CCR 299); Biswaroop Ghosh and others .v. State of Maharashtra and another (reported in 2008 Cri.L.J., 2521). It is not in dispute that though the offences alleged in the FIR are not compoundable, this Court invoking powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can quash the proceedings. It is also the settled position of law that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be used sparingly and with due care and caution. It will be useful to refer to the judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant No.1 in the case of Biswaroop Ghosh and others .v. State of Maharashtra and another (cited supra). This Court has observed thus :- “Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give edffect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code including Section 320 of the Code. The Court could exercise this power in offences of any kind, whether compoundable or non-compoundable.” It will also be useful to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot .v. State of Punjab (cited supra) as under :- “Compounding of offences – Personal disputes – Compromise – Courts should ordinarily accept terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings – Courts 4 cannot affort keeping matter alive with no possibility of result in favour of prosecution – Time so saved can be utilised in diciding more effective and meaningful litigation.” In view of the above referred judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court and in view of the fact that the parties have settled the dispute amicably, it is submitted by the parties that the FIR was lodged on a petty quarrel and the parties are willing not to prosecute the matter further so as to keep the relations between the parties cordial and amicable in future. The parties also submitted before this Court that the criminal proceedings should not become an impediment in the attempt of the parties to lead their future life on good and cordial relations as helpful and cooperative neighbours of each other. In my opinion, in view of the assurance given before this Court by the parties, it would be in the interest of justice to invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the present application. Accordingly the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) to (iii). JUDGE *rrg.