1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2623 OF 2009 Shaikh Mohammed Sultan & ors. ...Applicants vs. Shaikh Nazia Sultan and Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Aslam Khan for the applicants Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P for State Ms Nita Pujari for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 14, 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. The counsel for the first respondent wavies service. the learned A.P.P waives service for State of Maharashtra. The first respondent is the wife of the first applicant. The 2nd to 4th applicants are the other family members of the fist applicant. The marriage between the first applicant and the first respondent was solemnized on 21st May 2003. It appears that there was a matrimonial dispute between the first applicant and the first respondent. The first respondent lodged F.I.R against the applicant alleging offences punishable under section 498-A, 506 (B), 413 of the Indian Penal Code. There are proceedings filed between the parties before the family court. In the family court, consent terms were filed by the parties which record a complete settlement between the first applicant and the first respondent. The present application is for quashing 2 the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.3271/PW/2005 pending before the 12 th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai. The first respondent has tendered an affidavit which is taken on record and marked `X' for identification. In the said affidavit, the first respondent has confirmed that there was an amicable settlement between the first applicant and him. In the affidavit the first respondent has recorded her no objection for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case. As a result of matrimonial dispute between the first applicant and the first respondent, the first respondent lodged F.I.R. Now, the parties have put an end to their dispute. Continuation of the criminal proceedings will cause undue harassment to both the parties. Therefore, a case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. 2 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). ii) It is clarified that the is case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. JUDGE