[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.1186 OF 2008 Mrs.Najmooon Misamjamil Ahemed Shaikh and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Mrs.Shabana Nazir Shaikh and Anr. ..Respondents ... Ms.S.Y.Katdare with Ms.V.Nirmala Adv. for Petitioners Mr.Shashank Thatte adv. for Respondent no.1 Mr.S.R.Shinde A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Leave to amend is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of CC No.252/PW/2005 which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Dadar, Mumbai. The case is under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC. The said case pertains to CR No.74 of 2003 of Worli [-2-] Police Station, Mumbai. Respondent No.1 lodged FIR against the present petitioners. The respondent no.1 was wife of petitioner no.4. Petitioner no.1 is mother of petitioner no.4 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are sisters of petitioner no.4. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent no.1 states that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties, hence, FIR came to be lodged. He further stated that matrimonial proceedings were pending between petitioner no.4 and respondent no.1 before the Family Court. Family Court by order dated 3.2.2006 disposed of the said proceedings i.e. Petition No.E-457 of 2003 on account of amicable settlement between the parties. In the said proceedings, consent terms dated 3.2.2006 came to be filed. In the consent terms, it was provided that present respondent no.1 shall not proceed in respect of the above mentioned FIR under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC. The learned advocate for the complainant states that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties the complainant does not wish to continue with the prosecution of the above mentioned case. In view of the above facts and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in [-3-] the case of B.S.Joshi and another Vs. State of B.S.Joshi and another Vs. State of B.S.Joshi and another Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in Judgment Today Haryana and another reported in Judgment Today Haryana and another reported in Judgment Today 2003(3) S.C. 277, 2003(3) S.C. 277, 2003(3) S.C. 277, the proceedings pertaining to C.C.No. 252/PW/2004 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Dadar, Mumbai, are quashed and set aside. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner no.4 states that undertaking was given by the petitioner no.4 in this Court. As the date on the undertaking is not clear, the learned advocate for the petitioner no.4 states that the said undertaking has been executed on 20.9.2008. The said statement is accepted. It is further made clear that the order of the Family Court referred in the Undertaking is the order of the Family Court dated 3.2.2006 in Petition No.E-457 of 2003. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that as per the undertaking, Rs.1200/- per month will be deposited in the account of the respondent no.1-original complainant. 5. Petition is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]