IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4068 OF 2007. Mr.Ramniwas Goyal & Ors. ..Petitioners. versus Smt.Yukta Gaurishankar Goyal & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Rajender Singh Saluja, for the Petitioners. Mr.Rakesh Jain, for the Respondent No.1. Mrs. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J : A.S.OKA, J : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 12th September 2008. : 12th September 2008. : 12th September 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocates appearing for the parties. By this Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a prayer is made for quashing a criminal proceeding on the basis of F.I.R lodged by the first Respondent. The allegation made by the first Respondent was of commission of offences under sections 498-A(b) and 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The second Petitioner married to the first Respondent on 4th July 2002. The F.I.R was lodged by the first Respondent on 2nd January 2004. A charge sheet has already been filed. In the meanwhile, it : 2 : appears that the dispute between the second Petitioner and the first Respondent was settled and a decree of divorce under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Howrah. A certified copy of the decree of divorce has been filed on record. The prayer for quashing the proceeding is made on the basis of the settlement between the parties. In fact, in the proceedings under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Respondent made a statement that she would withdraw the criminal case. 3. The learned Advocate for the first Respondent is present. He invited my attention to an affidavit dated 20th November 2007 filed by the first Respondent in which she has accepted that the dispute between her and the Second Petitioner was amicably settled. The Advocate for the first Respondent states that the first Respondent is present in the Court and she has no objection if an order of quashing the proceeding is passed by allowing this Petition. 4. The F.I.R was lodged by the first Respondent as : 3 : a result of matrimonial dispute between herself and the second Petitioner. Now, there is a complete settlement between the parties in the matrimonial dispute. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. Continuation of prosecution will cause undue harassment to both the parties. Hence, a case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the said Code. 5. Accordingly, the Application is disposed of by passing the following order :- (1) The proceeding of the Criminal Case NO.489/PW/2004, pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, Mumbai is quashed. (2) The concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. [A.S.Oka,J.] [A.S.Oka,J.] [A.S.Oka,J.]