1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1226 OF 2010 Mr.Nikhil Ranjitsingh Arora and Ors. ...Applicants Vs. The Senior Inspector of Police Bangur Nagar, Police Station, and Another ...Respondents ----- Mr.R.U. Singh for Applicants Mrs.M.R. Tidake -APP for State Mr. M.R. Patil and Rishi Bhutta For Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 3RD MAY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 2. This is an application for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent no.2 under sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal code. 3. The Applicant No.1 got married with the Respondent No.2 on 26.1.2008. Thereafter, certain 2 disputes and differences have been arrived between them. The Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint with the Bangur Nagar Police Station against the Applicants on 23.11.2009. Thereafter a petition was filed for divorce for mutual consent in Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai vide petition No. A355 of 2009. In the said petition, consent terms were filed. In clause of the said consent terms, the Respondent no.2 has given an undertaking that she will co-operate the Petitioner No.1 for quashing the FIR 399/PW/2009. 4. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court, 1386 has held that this Court while exercising its inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.c. can quash a complaint even if it is not compoundable. It is further held that power power of this Court is not curtailed or limited by virtue of section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and has reiterated the consent of the Consent terms which were filed in the Family Court. She has no objection if the complaint is quashed. 5. I am satisfied, therefore, that the said consent has been given by the Respondent No.2 on her own free will and that quashing of the complaint is in the 3 interest of both the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2. The petition is allowed and the Criminal complaint vide C.R. No. 247 of 2009 registered with the Bangur Nagar Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 498(A), 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and which is pending in the Court of the Learned Additional C.M.M., 24th Court Borivali, Mumbai vide C.C. No. 399/PW/2010 is quashed and set aside. 6. Petition is, accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE J.)