( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2009 Santosh s/o Tatyarao Mane and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for respondent No.1/State. Mr. S.J. Salunke, advocate for the respondent No. 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 9th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned APP. 3. The petitioners seek to challenge the registration of offence vide crime No. 439/2006 and the filing of the chargesheet against them for offence punishable under section 498-A, 323 and 504 read with ( 2 ) section 34 of the I.P. Code. The respondent No. 2 is the original complainant. She is wife of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1, the petitioners No. 4 and 5 are the brother and sister of the petitioner No. 1 and the remaining three (3) petitioners are their close relatives. 4. The petitioners and the respondent No. 2 have settled the dispute amicably. The respondent No. 2 has filed her affidavit to the effect that she does not want to prosecute the criminal case. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the parties and also appears from the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 that by mutual consent, the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 have filed divorce petition. It is amply clear that the spouses are incompatible. The learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 – Smt. Vidya would submit that the criminal prosecution may be quashed in view of the settlement outside the Court. He would point out from the pleadings of the application filed under section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, that a lump-sum amount is given to the respondent No. 2 and the spouses have ( 3 ) agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other. 5. The recitals of the FIR do not show that the petitioners could be charged with offence punishable under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution is likely to be impediment in the further harmonious relationship between the parties. The prosecution is not likely to be resulted in conviction because the respondent No. 2 herself is not inclined to support the charges. In other words, the prosecution may be only abuse of the process of the Court. The time of the Court is likely to be unnecessarily wasted if the prosecution is continued. 6. For the reasons aforestated, the petition deserves to be allowed. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned FIR and the criminal case i.e. R.C.C. No. 392/2008 pending on file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed is quashed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp646-09 ( 4 )