1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2926 OF 2009 Mr.Shankar K. Punjabi & ors. ... Petitioners versus Mrs.Tina Vikas Chawla Punjabi & Anr. ... Respondents ... Mr. M.H.Solkar for petitioner. Ms.Preeti Walimbe for respondent no.1. Mr.A.S.Shitole APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 24th November 2009 P.C. 1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.1 and learned APP for the State. 3. Petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of an FIR registered under C.R.No. 347 of 2009 for offence punishable u/s.498A, 506, 406, 504, 323 r/w section 34 of the IPC. Respondent no.1 is the daughter in law of petitioner no.1 and 2 and the widow of their son. Out of the domestic dispute arising out between the parties, petitioner filed the present FIR and also filed a complaint under Domestic Violence Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter has since been 2 settled between the parties and consent terms have been filed in the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 under Domestic Violence Act. A copy of the consent terms is annexed to the petition at Exhibit-D page 90. 4. Respondent no.1 who is present in person in the court also states that the matter has been settled and she has no grievance left and does not wish to continue with the criminal proceedings against the present petitioners. She states that her parents are at Spain and she wants to join them in Spain and has signed the consent terms voluntarily and has given consent for quashing of the proceedings voluntarily and without any force, fear or inducement. 5. In B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra 2003(4) SCC 675, the Supreme Court has held that even in respect of non compoundable cases involving family dispute and particular by section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court can quash the criminal proceedings though offences are not compoundable. Where settlement has taken place in such matters, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution. Relying on the said decision, counsel for the parties submit that the FIR may be quashed and the matter has been settled between the parties. Submission deserves to be accepted. 6. Learned APP also has no objection for quashing of the FIR. 7. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (D.G. KARNIK,J.)