abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1976 OF 2005 Kalpesh Ishwardas Sanghavi .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondent Mr.A.H.R. Ponda for the applicant. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. Mr.D. Purekar for the respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant and the respondent no.2 were husband and wife till their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. By an order dated 23rd February 2005 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4700505 of 2005 at the instance of the respondent no.2, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Pune issue a search warrant against the applicant who was alleged - 2 - to have illegally confined their son Dhanvin in his custody. By an order dated 16th March 2005, the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dismissed the Criminal Revision Application No.150 of 2005 filed for challenging the order of the learned Magistrate. That order is impugned in this application. 3. The learned counsel for the parties stated that the entire dispute arose out of the matrimonial dispute between the applicant and the respondent no.2. The applicant and the respondent no.2 thereafter agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, the marriage Petition No.A-552/2005 filed by the applicant in the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai was converted into a petition by mutual consent and by order dated 4th September 2007, the marriage has been dissolved by mutual consent. At the time of dissolution, the parties have agreed that the custody of the son Dhanvin would remain with the applicant and the respondent no.2 would only have visiting rights. Consent terms to that effect were filed before the Family Court. The Family Court has accepted the consent terms and has awarded the custody of Dhanvin to the applicant with visiting rights to the respondent no.2. By the consent terms, the respondent no.2 has agreed to withdraw the proceedings taken out by her for search warrant before the Judicial Magistrate, Pune. - 3 - 4. The applicant and the respondent no.2 are personally present in Court and are identified by their respective counsel. Both of them admit that the marriage between them have been dissolved by mutual consent. The respondent no.2 further admits that it is agreed that the custody of Dhanvin would permanently remain with the applicant and she has also agreed to withdraw the proceedings initiated by her for the search warrant. In view of the fact that the custody of the son Dhanvin has been awarded to the applicant by the Family Court and in view of the fact that the respondent no.2 had agreed to withdraw the proceedings taken out by her before the Judicial Magistrate for issuance of search warrant, the impugned order cannot survive and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 5. The parties are at liberty to move the learned Magistrate for formal order of withdrawal of the proceedings. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)