1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1179 OF 2011 Dr.Aditya Kuldiprai Kapil and others Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Ms.Smita Gaidhani for applicants. Ms.Manjul Kadam for respondent no.2. Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 8th December 2011 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present application the applicant prays to quash the criminal proceedings initiated as Regular Criminal Case No.202 of 2007. The FIR in question came to be lodged at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The marriage between the applicant no.1 and and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 10th July 2003 and out of the wedlock two daughters were born. In view of the matrimonial disputes, the parties are residing separately since 12th September 2006. The applicant no.1-husband also filed proceedings for divorce against respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 as stated above had filed FIR No.I-78/2007 on 24th March 2007 against all the accused/applicants herein at Town Police Station, Thane. 2 4. During pendency of the complaint and the criminal case, the parties have settled amicably the matrimonial dispute. Accordingly, they have filed consent terms dated 14th March 2011 in Petition No.A-2461 of 2007 before the Family Court, at Mumbai, which is annexed as Exhibit-B to present application. Under the said consent terms, the applicant no.1 herein has agreed to deposit Rs.38.00 lakhs in the Family Court and after depositing the said amount, the respondent no.2 has agreed to give her consent and co-operate with the applicants for quashing FIR No.I-78/2007, Regular Criminal Case No.202 of 2007 and other proceedings. Accordingly, in terms of the consent terms, the applicant no. 1 has deposited a sum of Rs.38.00 lakhs and decree of divorce is also passed by the Family Court on 9th August 2011. 5. The respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit dated 8th December 2011. She has stated that as the applicant no.1 has complied with the obligation under the consent terms of depositing a sum of Rs.38.00 lakhs and as the Family Court has granted divorce, she has no objection for quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicants. She has further declared that the parties to the Marriage Petition have no claims against each other and as agreed, she will not initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against applicants. 6. It can thus be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008)4-SCC-582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the 3 costs need to be addled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 8. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. The costs are to be paid by the applicants by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fun, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on record of the present application. 9. At this stage the learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that the ornaments belonging to respondent no.2 were deposited by the applicants at Town Police Station, Thane. The said ornaments were given to respondent no.2 on executing indemnity bond of Rs.10.00 lakh. It is prayed that the said indemnity bond may be cancelled and the respondent no.2 may be discharged. Since the dispute between the parties is settled and parties have no claims against each other, the indemnity bond hereby stands cancelled and the respondent no.2 is discharged from the undertakings given therein and liability, if any, arising therefrom. (RANJIT MORE, J.)