1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1758 OF 2010 Sudarshan Bishansingh Hans & Ors. ...Applicants Vs. Pooja Sudarshan Hans & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr. Ganesh Gole for Applicants Mrs. M.R. Tidake - APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 16TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Respondent No.1 has filed the affidavit in reply. By this application , which is filed under section 482 of the Cr.p.C., the Applicants are seeking direction from this Court for quashing the criminal complaint which is registered at the Tilak Nagar Police Station vide C.R. No. 110 of 2006 and the proceedings which are now pending in the Court of 34th Court, Vikhroli vide C.C. No. 24/P.W./2007. The Applicant No.1 and Respondent no.1 got married on 16th February, 2005 at Deharadun and the reception of 1 the said marriage was held at Mumbai and Delhi. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the Applicant No.1 and his family members started harassing the Respondent no.1 and, therefore, the said criminal complaint was filed. It is submitted that soon thereafter, the Applicant No.1 filed divorce proceeding in the Family Court at Bandra. The said proceeding was later on converted into a petiton for divorce by mutual consent which was allowed by the Family Court and consent terms were filed in the said petition, which are annexed at Exhibit "E' to this petition. 3. In clause 5 of the said consent terms, the Respondents agreed and gave an undertaking to withdraw the criminal complaint which was filed by her against the Applicant No.1 and his family members. The Respondent no.1 has also filed affidavit-in-reply, in which it is stated that she has no objection if the criminal case filed against the Applicants herein is quashed. The Respondent no.1 is present in the Court and she has reiterated whatever stated by her in her affidavit-in-reply. Though a complaint under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, this Court while exercising its jurisidction under section 482 of the Cr.P.c. can quash the said complaint, if it is satisfied that the 1 Complainant has no objection for quashing the said complaint and that it is in her best interest so that she can start her fresh life. 4. After having perused the Consent Terms which are filed by the parties in the Family Court and taking into consideration the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent no.1, I am satisfied that quashing of the complaint is in the interest of the Respondent wife. It is well settled position in law that the power exercised by this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not curtailed or limited by the provisions of section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, as such, though in the said case the offence is not compoundable and more particularly, a complaint filed by the wife agianst her husband can be quashed by this Court under section 482 while exercising its power under section 482. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate and taking into consideration the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent No.1 and the Consent Terms filed, if the complaint is quashed. 5. The criminal case vide C.R. No. 110 of 2006 registered with Tilak Nagar police Station for the offence under sections 498A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all proceedings initiated in the said 1 case which are now pending in the Court of 34th Court, Vikhroli vide C.C. No. 24/P.W./2007 are quashed and set aside. (V.M. KANADE J.)