1 APL.1182-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1182 OF 2011 Rajesh Ramavtar Singhania & Ors. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. ---- Ms. Shelina Mobhani, for the Applicants. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicants are seeking quashing of the criminal complaint which is registered with Malad Police 2 APL.1182-2011 Station, Mumbai vide CR No.361 of 2011 by applicant no.4 against applicant nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. 3. In the said complaint, various allegations in respect of demand of dowry and harassment were made. Applicant No.4 and Applicant No.1 got married on 2.12.2009. However, thereafter there was difference of opinion between applicant no.4 and applicant no.2. Therefore, applicant no. 4 left her matrimonial house and started residing with her parents from 2.6.2011. A complaint was lodged on 25.7.2011 with the Malad Police Station. Thereafter, as a result of efforts taken by the Mediator and other persons, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, and applicant no. 4 is now residing with applicant no.1 in a separate residential house which is situated in the building in which applicant no.2 is also residing. The applicant is now in advance stage of pregnancy and she is being looked after by applicant no.1. 4. Both applicant nos.1 and 4 are present in the court. A joint request is made for quashing the complaint. We have asked applicant no.4 in the court about the quashing of the complaint, and she has stated that she 3 APL.1182-2011 has no complaint against her husband as well as against her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and she has no objection if the criminal complaint is quashed. We have also asked Mrs. Kantharia, learned A.P.P. to find out whether pressure was put on applicant no.4 by applicant no.1 to give consent for quashing of the criminal complaint. Mrs. Kantharia, on instructions from applicant no.4, submits that applicant no.4 is not making statement under pressure and she is willing to give her consent for quashing the criminal complaint against applicant nos.1 to 3. 5. Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, in our view, this is a fit case for quashing of the criminal complaint filed by applicant no.4 against applicant nos.1 to 3. The Apex Court, in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386, has held that if this court is satisfied that the complaint should be quashed in the interest of husband and wife, this court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash the complaint. 6. In the result, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. 4 APL.1182-2011 6. However, we would like to see whether applicant no.1 is taking proper care of applicant no.4. Hence, though the criminal application is disposed of, we direct the office to place this application before this Bench on 7th February, 2012. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)