1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.777 OF 2010 Smt. Manmohankaur Ujjal Singh Chandok & Ors. : Petitioners (Orig.Accused Nos.1 to 4) V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Santosh Chari for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Shitole, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr.Rahul Arote for respondent nos.2 & 3. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing C.C. No.553/PW/2010 arising out of C.R. No.267 of 2009 registered by M.I.D.C. police station and pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s 22nd Court at Andheri, Mumbai. 2 3. The petitioner no.4 is the husband of the respondent no.3. Rest of the petitioners are relatives of the petitioner no.2. The respondent no.2 is a relative of the respondent no.3. 4. The F.I.R. in question was registered on the basis of the respondent no.2 alleging that the respondent no.3 informed her that she was ill- treated by the petitioners on account of non-fulfilment of dowry. 5. It appears that the F.I.R. was registered at the behest of the respondent nos.2 and 3 on account of matrimonial disputes between the parties. 6. It appears that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that the parties have dissolved their marriage by mutual consent. The petitioners and the respondent nos.2 and 3 are present in Court. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent no.3 reiterating the said fact. The respondent no.3, who is also personally present in Court, reiterates the fact regarding the amicable settlement between the parties. 7. The apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) has held that the Courts should encourage settlement 3 in matrimonial disputes and when the parties have settled their disputes amicably, the Court should invoke the powers under section 482 to give an end to the litigation. I find that this is a fit case for this Court to exerciser the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). B. R. GAVAI, J.