5b. cr appln 3981-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3981 OF 2010 Ganesh Padmakar Patil .. Applicant Vs Bharat Kalu Vaze & Ors .. Respondents Mr. V.V. Purwant for the Applicant Mr. Ganesh Mohite for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 29th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-original accused, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1-original complainant & respondent no. 2-injured witness and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants have preferred this application for quashing of FIR No. 118 of 2008 of Vishnu Nagar Police Station which was lodged by respondent no. 1 against the applicant. The said case is under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of of IPC. 3. Learned advocate for the original complainant who is 1 5b. cr appln 3981-10.doc also the injured witness stated that he is related to the accused. Due to intervention of elders, the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. He also states that if the FIR is not quashed, it would cause serious enmity between both sides which would also disturb the peace and tranquility in the locality. It would also cause friction among the common relations of the accused and the complainant. Hence, he prayed that the FIR and the proceedings relating thereto be quashed. 4. The learned APP submitted that applicant no. 1 is involved in other offences and hence FIR may not be quashed. To support her contention, she has pointed out that applicant no. 1 is involved in C.R. No. 29 of 2006 of Vishnunagar Police Station. As far as, this other case is concerned, it is seen that it pertains to some other parties and it is not a cross case. As far as. the present case is concerned, it is a cross case. The applicant has lodged C.R. NO. 116 of 2008 at Vishnunagar Police Station against respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 has preferred Cri. Application No. 3982 of 2010 for quashing of the said FIR. Both the parties have amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves and both the sides have prayed that the CR lodged by them against each other be quashed. Moreover, the parties on both sides are closely related to each other which is not the case in the 2 5b. cr appln 3981-10.doc other offence. 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 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". 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 3 5b. cr appln 3981-10.doc 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. The ratio of above decisions squarely applies to the present case. In view of the above decisions, in my opinion, there is no reason as to why the FIR lodged against the applicant-original accused 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. 8. In the result, FIR No. 118 of 2008 of Vishnunagar Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. 9 Application is allowed in above terms. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 5b. cr appln 3981-10.doc 5