1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 345 OF 2010 Milan s/o Ashruba Mhaske, Aged 35 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Palwan, Taluka and District Beed Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Swati Ashruba Pawar @ Swati Milan Mhaske, Aged 25 years, Occupation Household, Resident of Palwan, Taluka and District Beed. Respondents Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Rakh, APP for the respondent No.1 / State Mr. R.K. Temkar, Advocate for the respondent No.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 30th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. On 24th September, 2004, the respondent No. 2 / complainant lodged her complaint with police, alleging that the petitioner had repeatedly raped her during the period of about six months, prior to the lodging of the complaint. She alleged that the petitioner was married and was telling her that he would marry her and that he loved 2 her etc. The police registered the offence as Crime No. 135 of 2004 and the investigation was started. On the other hand, the petitioner obtained the order of anticipatory bail. The charge-sheet came to be filed on 31st December, 2005. The matter is now pending before the Sessions Court for trial. It seems, in the mean time, number of developments took place. On one hand, the wife of the petitioner died, and on the other, the respondent No. 2 / complainant ultimately agreed to marry the petitioner. They got married in the year 2005, and I am told, they have a child also. In a situation like this, there is no possibility of the respondent No.2’s supporting the prosecution, at the time of trial. The settlement that had occurred between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 / complainant, appears to be genuine. The respondent No.2 / complainant has filed an affidavit engaging an independent Advocate. She clearly stated in her affidavit that she does not want to proceed with the case, which she lodged in the year 2004. In view of this, a strong case is made out for quashing of the criminal proceedings. Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. Rule made absolute in above terms. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/criwp/345/10