:1: 9.apl.186.11 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 186 OF 2011 Shri. Natwarsinh L. Chauhan and Ors ..Applicants Vs. U. T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Anr ..Respondents Mr.Balkrishna Joshi and Virendra Pethe,for Applicants. Mr D. A. Nalawade,Union Territorial for Respondent No.1. Mr. Anamika Mhatre,for Respondent No.2. Smt. V. R. Bhosale, APP for State. CORAM :- V. M. KANADE & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE :- SEPTEMBER 20, 2011. P. C.: Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2 This Application is filed for quashing the complaint which is filed by the Respondent, which is registered at Silvasa Police-station vide C.R. No. 46 of 2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. :2: 9.apl.186.11 3 The learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and husband and wife are now staying together. The Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. We have interviewed her and she has stated that she has no grievance against the Applicant No.2 and all the disputes and differences between them have now been resolved. She has also filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating what she has stated in the Court. 4 In view of the consent given by the Respondent No.1, in our view, there is no impediment in quashing the FIR, which is registered at Silvasa Police-station by the Respondent No.2. The Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Ors v/s State of Haryana, reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1824, has observed that if the Court is satisfied that the differences between the husband and wife have been resolved,then in such cases, the High Court, while exercising it’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C, can quash the complaint and restriction, which is imposed on the Trial Court under Section 320 of the Cr. P. C, will not restrict the powers of the High Court in quashing the complaint. 5 Mr. Nalawade, the Union territorial of Nagra and Dadra Haveli, submits that in the affidavit-in-reply, which is filed by the Respondent No.2, she has stated that the Police had tried to pressurize her to file the complaint. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 :3: 9.apl.186.11 withdraws all the allegations, which are made in the affidavit-in-reply, against the Police and she tenders her unconditional apology. 6 In view of this, the learned APP is satisfied with the withdrawal of the allegations and unconditional apology tendered by the Respondent No.2. The application, therefore, is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed of. ( A. M. THIPSAY, J. ) ( V. M. KANADE, J.)