1 1824.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1824 OF 2011 Mrs.Ranjana Santosh Kanojia. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. Ravindra V. Sankpal for the petitioner. D.R.More, APP for respondent No.1- State. G.S.Tiwari for respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 28th July 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing of F.I.R. No.332/2010 registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai. 3. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were married to each other on 21st January 2008. However, it appears that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and, as such, the aforesaid F.I.R. came to be registered at the instance of present petitioner. 2 1824.11-wp 4. The matter is, now, settled between the parties. The parties have filed consent terms in M.J.Petition No.A-2042/2010. An affidavit is also filed by the petitioner reiterating the fact of settlement. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are personally present in the Court. 5. It can, therefore, be seen that the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute. It can further be seen that the parties have agreed to give an end to the criminal litigations pending between them. 6. The Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that this Court should encourage settlement of matrimonial disputes by exercising extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 498 A of the IPC. 7. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R.GAVAI, J.)