-: 1 :- apl-1148/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1148 OF 2011 Reema Samir Mehra. ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Chetan Akerkar for the applicant. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are personally present. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : December 12, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By the present application the applicant has prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 279/PW/2010 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The FIR in question came to be registered at the instance of applicant for the offence punishable under section 498A and 406 read with 34 of IPC. The crime appears to have been registered on the allegation that respondent nos. 2 to 5 had ill-treated the Applicant – Complainant for unlawful demands. 3. The marriage of respondent no.2 with the Applicant was srp -: 2 :- apl-1148/11 solemnised on 6/5/2007, however, in view of the differences between them, the couple started residing separately from January 2009. Respondent no.2 filed marriage petition being Petition No. A-1923 of 2009 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The matrimonial dispute between the Applicant and respondent nos.2 to 5 is now amicably settled. The consent terms came to be filed in the aforesaid marriage petition and thereby parties have agreed to obtain divorce by mutual consent. Respondent no.2 by way of lumpsum alimony has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.19 lacs to the Applicant and out of this amount an amount of Rs.2 lac is already paid to the Applicant. In terms of the said consent terms, the balance amount of Rs.17 lacs is already deposited in the Family Court. In paragraph no.6 of the consent terms, the Applicant has agreed to withdraw the criminal cases filed by her against respondent nos. 2 to 5. 4. The Applicant as well as respondent nos.2 and 4 are present before me. On query, the Applicant submitted that she has gone through Applications and understands the implications of the same. She further submitted that she has no objection if the criminal proceedings being C.C.No. -: 3 :- apl-1148/11 79/CR/2009 initiated at her instance are quashed. She further submitted that the balance amount of Rs.17 lacs will be allowed to be withdrawn by her after the complaint is quashed. Upon query, Respondent nos.2 and 4 also submitted that they have no objection if the said amount of Rs.17 lacs is withdrawn by the applicant after complaint is quashed. 5. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi verses State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 held that in the event of settlement of the matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A of IPC can be quashed, even though, the offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below: “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the -: 4 :- apl-1148/11 ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane versus State of Maharashtra reported in 2008(5) LJ.Soft 46. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In these circumstances, and especially , in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interest of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be -: 5 :- apl-1148/11 saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their private disputes. 7. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-. Costs to be paid by the Applicant by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of four weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matter. (RANJIT MORE, J.)