1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2017 OF 2009 Vipul Premjibhai Vora & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.M.S.Bhardwaj i/b. J.B. Mishra for the petitioners. Ms S.V.Gajare, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. Mr.Dinesh Tyade for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 02, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. By the present petition, the petitioners pray for quashing Criminal Case No.27/PW/07 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 29th Court, Dadar, arising out of F.I.R. No.338/06 dated 21.9.2006. 2 3. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 are husband and wife. It appears that the there were disputes between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2. It further appears that on account of the matrimonial dispute, the aforesaid criminal case came to be filed for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 354, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C. 4. However, now it appears that the parties have settled their matrimonial disputes and a Consent Terms have already been placed on record before the learned Family Court in Petition No.A-1997 of 2006. 5. The respondent no.2 has also filed an affidavit stating therein that the matrimonial dispute has been resolved and that she has no grievance against any of the petitioners. 6. The apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (4) SCC 675) has held that if matrimonal dispute between the parties is settled, this Court should give an end to criminal litigation by exercising the powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7. The parties are personally present in Court. They reiterate the settlement arrived at between them. In that view of the matter, I am 3 inclined to allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (a). B. R. GAVAI, J.