1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (16) Cri. Writ Petition NO. 381/2010 Bharat Narayan Galbale and another ( Vs. ) The State of Maharashtra and another ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Mr. N.V. Gavare, Advocate for petitioners. Mr.N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. S.N. Gaikwad, Advocate for resp. no.2 ORAL ORDER : - 1. Heard. 2 Rule. 3 Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the counsels of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage. 4 This petition is filed for seeking quashing of crime No. I-43/2010 registered with Shrigonda Police Station, District Ahmednagar. The petitioners are charged under section 498- A, 323, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of I.P.C.. The respondent no.2 is the complainant. It is common ground that the petitioner no. 1 is 2 husband of the complainant and that their marriage took place way back in 1995 and that they have two school going children. The complainant alleged that of late the petitioner no.1 her husband started telling her that he would marry another woman by name Manisha the petitioner no.2 and on that count, there used to occur quarrels between the couple. One such quarrel took place on 30th January 2010. During the quarrel, it is alleged, the petitioner no.1 became violent and assaulted and abused the complainant/ respondent no.2. The complainant /respondent no.2 then after 8 days lodged this complaint. She alleged that the petitioner no.1 ill treated her on the instigation of the petitioner no.2, and surprisingly, the Police registered the offence against the petitioner no.2 also. Admittedly, the petitioner no.2 was not present when the incident took place on 30th January, 2010 between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant. On the basis of it, therefore, the complaint as against the petitioner no.2, deserves to be quashed. 5 The further development that took place 3 between the parties is, that this couple has now settled their dispute and with the result, the respondent no.2 complainant has filed an affidavit before this Court saying that she had filed the complaint due to misunderstanding and she does not want to proceed with it. I think the settlement between this couple is a genuine transaction. The respondent no.2 is present before the Court. She has engaged an independent advocate. However, she is seen sitting next to her husband in the court hall. Having heard the parties, I am satisfied that the settlement between the couple is bona fide and genuine. In view of this, a strong case is made out for quashing of the F.I.R.. The petition is allowed. The crime No. I-43/2010 of Shrigonda Police station, stands quashed. Rule made absolute. Dt : 15th April, 10 [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/criwp381.10/ok