1 cr-wp-3077-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. W.P. NO. 3077 OF 2010 Sachin Narayan Bhaud ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Vivek Salunkhe Adv. for Petitioner Smt. A.A.Mane APP for State Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal Adv. for Respondent No.2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 21, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-complainant and the learned APP for the State. The complainant and accused are present in Court. 2 The petitioner is seeking quashing of C.R. No. 7 of 2010 which is registered at Tala Police Station, Dist. Raigad and the proceedings relating thereto. The said case is under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(xii) of the S.C.S.T. (Atrocities) Act. Respondent no.2 is the complainant. 2 cr-wp-3077-10 3 The complainant who is present in person in the Court, states that her date of birth is 8.2.1991 and at the time of the incident, she was about 16 years of age. She has stated that there was a love affair between her and the petitioner and on account of affair, sexual intercourse took place. She has stated that thereafter, as the petitioner did not marry her, she lodged FIR. She has further stated that thereafter she has amicably settled the matter with the petitioner and she got married with the petitioner on 28.4.2010. She has tendered a photo copy of the marriage certificate which is taken on record. She further stated that as she has amicably resolved the matter with the petitioner and she is happily residing with the petitioner, she does not wish to continue the prosecution. She further stated that if the prosecution is continued, her husband would be sent to jail and then there would be no one to take care of her and she will be on the streets. Thus, she prayed for quashing of the FIR. She has also tendered affidavit to that effect which is on record. 4 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 3 cr-wp-3077-10 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 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 4 cr-wp-3077-10 persecution. 6 Thus, in view of the above decisions and in view of amicable settlement between the parties, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 7 In the result, C.R.No. 7 of 2010 of Tala Police Station, and the proceedings relating thereto, is quashed. 8 Petition disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]