1 wp629.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 629 of 2011 Mr. Baburao Patekar & ors. ....Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. C.K. Talekar for the petitioners. Mr. Y.M. Nakhawa-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 3rd August, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner no.3 and respondent no.2 were married to each other on 12th December, 2008. However, immediately after the marriage the differences arose between the petitioner no.3 and respondent no.2. As such the FIR came to be lodged with the respondent no.1 for offence punishable under Section 498 A against all the petitioners. 3. The matter has now been amicably settled between the parties. The petitioner no.3 and respondent no. 2 have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The respondent no.2-complainant is personally present in the Court and she reiterates about the settlement. It can, therefore, be seen that the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute. It can further be seen that the parties have agreed to give an end to the criminal litigations pending between 2 wp629.11.sxw them. 5. The Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that this Court should encourage settlement of matrimonial disputes by exercising extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 498 A of the IPC. 6. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R. GAVAI, J)