1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1287 OF 2010 Smt. Rekha w/o. Vishnu Ankushe, Age 29 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Phulenagar, Lane No. 5, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ....Applicant. Versus Dr. Rajendra s/o. Tulshiram Ankushe, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Govt. Servant, R/o. Plot No. 31, Tatranyanagar, Satara Road, Aurangabad and others two. ....Respondents. Mr. M.N. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 217 OF 2007 1. Dr. Rajendra s/o. Tulshiram Ankushe, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Govt. Servant, R/o. Plot No. 31, Tatranyanagar, Satara Road, Aurangabad. At present working as Associate Professor, Medical College and Hospital, Dhule. 2. Dr. Shalini w/o. Rajendra Ankushe, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Medical Practitioner, R/o. As above. 3. Parvatibai w/o. Tulshiram Ankushe, Age 60 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. C/o. R.T. Ankushe, Plot No. 31, Tantradnya Nagar, High Court Colony, Satara Area, Aurangabad. .......Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2 2. Smt. Rekha w/o. Vishnu Ankushe, Age 26 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Lane No. 5, Fule Nagar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ........Respondents. Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for State. CORAM: V. R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED: 26th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this common order, the application and the petition are being decided together. 2. Head learned Advocate Mr. Deshmukh M.N. for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 1287/2010 and the respondent No. 2 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 217/2007. None appears for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 217/2007 and the respondent in Criminal Application No. 1287/2010, except the learned A.P.P. 3. What appears from the record and submissions of Mr. M.N. Deshmukh is that the wife filed private complaint case bearing R.C.C. No. 588/2006 for offence punishable under sections 406, 420 and 498-A read with 34 of the I. P. Code against her husband and his relatives. It appears that process was issued in pursuance to her private complaint for offence under sections 406 and 498-A read with 34 of the I. P. Code by 3 order dated 10th of July 2006. It further appears that by filing revision application the husband and his relatives challenged the order of issuance of process. The Criminal Writ Petition No. 217/2007 was filed for such purpose in this Court. In the meanwhile, maintenance proceedings were going on before the Family Court, Aurangabad. It also appears that the spouses arrived at compromise and they filed terms of compromise in the proceedings before the Family Court which bore R.D.No. 5/2007. It was agreed between the spouses that the husband would deposit Rs. 50,000/- as lump-sum amount towards maintenance of the wife. It was also agreed that the respective proceedings filed by the spouses would be withdrawn thereafter. 4. Mr. Deshmukh makes statement that the husband died prior to such compromise terms. He makes statement that the husband had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the Family Court, Aurangabad. He further states that the Criminal Writ Petition No. 217/2007 may be allowed and the process issued against the husband and his relatives may be quashed by allowing the writ petition. He submits that due to pendency of these applications, the wife is unable to withdraw the amount which is deposited in the Family Court. 5. Since no one appears for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 217/2007 and Mr. Deshmukh has no objection to quash the process. Hence the private complaint case stands quashed and process order is 4 recalled by allowing the said Writ Petition. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 217/2007) and the Criminal Application No. 1287/2010 is also allowed. The wife is at liberty to withdraw the amount from the Family Court, Aurangabad and the same may be allowed without any further impediment. Application and petition stand disposed of. [ V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] ssc/ca1287.10