1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.964 OF 2010 Hetan @ Hiten Kritikumar Solanki & Ors. .... Applicant Vs. Mrs. Jyotika Hetan @ Hiten Solanki & Anr..... Respondents Mr. Dharmendra Joshi, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 11th July, 2011 P.C. 1. This application filed under 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of Regular Criminal Case No.15 of 2008 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Diu for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406 and 506 Indian Penal Code filed at the instance of respondent no.1. 2. Respondent no.1 is the wife of applicant No.1. Applicants no. 2 to 6 are the family members of applicant no.1. Learned counsel for the applicants states that applicant nos. 1 to 3 have already been acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Diu by 2 the judgment and order dated 20th March 2010. Therefore, the present application is being pressed only on behalf of applicants no. 4 to 6. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants states that in fact the entire dispute raised by respondent no.1 is settled as can be seen from various documents filed in the court including the affidavit of respondent no.1 dated 12th January 2011. In her affidavit, respondent no.1 has admitted settlement of the dispute and stated that she does not desire to proceed with the criminal proceedings pending the Court of J.M.F.C., Diu. It appears that after arriving at the settlement, the parties had filed their joint pursis for compromise dated 9th February 2009 in the trial Court. However, the trial Court rejected the application as the offence under Section 498-A is not compoundable. 4. The marriage tie between the applicant no.1 and respondent no.1 has been severed by the decree of divorce deed dated 10th June 2009. Prior to that the parties had entered into deed of divorce dated 31st January 2009. Respondent no.1 no longer desires to continue with the criminal proceedings. Further the dispute under the complaint is purely personal and does not touch public policy. Therefore, no purpose would be served by continuing the criminal 3 proceedings against the applicants no. 2 to 6. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)