1 cri-wp-1998-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1998 OF 2010 Mr. Vicky Chhagan Thakur .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & anr. .. Respondents Mr. Diwakar Singh for petitioner. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for State. Mr. Rishi Bhuta for respondent no.2. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. August 03, 2010. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard Mr. Diwakar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3. The petitioner is an accused in C.R. No. 219 of 2010 2 cri-wp-1998-10 registered with the Vakola Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. Admittedly, no charge-sheet has yet been filed by the IO on completion of the investigation into the said CR. 4. During the pendency of the investigation, both the petitioner- accused and respondent no.2- complainant have arrived at a compromise so as to resolve their disputes on account of which the incident had occurred giving rise to CR No. 219 of 2010. Respondent No.2 has filed his affidavit supporting the petition and he states that he has no grievance against the petitioner and the day to day relationship between the two is cordial and, therefore, he is not inclined to pursue the complaint registered with the Vakola Police Station, Mumbai. 5. Both the parties are present before us and they have duly verified the compromise between them. The learned counsel for the parties have relied upon the five Judge bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and ors. vs. State of Punjab and anr. [2007 (4) C.T.C. 769] as well as the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582]. In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (Supra) the Supreme Court stated, 3 cri-wp-1998-10 “... 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 overburdened 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 realities and benefit of the technicalities of the law. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused a compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings....” 6. The larger bench of the Punjab and Haryan High Court in Kulwinder Singh’s case (Supra) held that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. and the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the court has the wide powers to quash the proceedings 4 cri-wp-1998-10 even in non-compoundable offences, notwithstanding the power under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. A Full Bench of this court also has reiterated the same view in the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(2) Mh.L.J. 856]. 7. Hence, we allow this petition by consent of the parties and solely on the basis of the compromise arrived between them. 8. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)