{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1467 OF 2010 1. Vikas s/o Haribhau Chavan Age-30 years, Occ-Advocate 2. Haribhau s/o Rangnath Chavan Age-55 years, Occ-Agriculture 3. Prayagbai w/o Haribhau Chavan Age-50 years, Occ-Household All R/o Pimperkhed, Tq-Ashti Dist-Beed 4. Latabai d/o Haribhau Chavan Age-31 years, Occ-Service R/o Dhamangaon, Tq-Ashti Dist-Beed APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through P.S.Ambhora, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed 2. The Superintendent of Police, Beed Dist-Beed 3. Kalpana w/o Vikas Chavan Age-21 years, Occ-Household R/o Pimperkhed, Tq-Ashti Dist-Beed RESPONDENTS {2} ....... Mr. Rahul Awasarmol, Advocate for the applicants Mr. D.V.Tele, APP for respondent State Mr.Nilesh Bandale, Advocate for Respondent No.3 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 12th July 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present criminal application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR on the basis of which CR No.11/2010 is registered in Ambhora police station, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed on 22.01.2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. Rule. 4. Considering the fact that very small point is involved in this application, rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 5. Relations interse, between the applicants and respondent No.3 are not disputed. Applicant No.1 is the husband {3} of respondent No.3, applicants No.2 and 3 are parents of applicant No.1 and parents in laws of respondent No.3 and applicant No.4 is the sister of applicant No.1 and sister in law of respondent No.3. It appears that due to matrimonial dispute, respondent No.3 had filed a complaint with Ambhora police station on 22.01.2010 alleging harassment and illegal demand at the hands of the applicants. On the basis of the said complaint CR No.11/2010 came to be registered for an offence punishable u/s 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the applicants were arrested on 25th January 2010. It appears that subsequently, all the applicants are released on bail. 6. It appears from the submissions advanced across the bar and on perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 that after filing of the complaint the parties have settled their dispute amicably and in view of settlement of the dispute, respondent No.3 / original complainant has started residing with the applicants / accused. Respondent No.3 has contended in the affidavit filed by her that now she is happily residing in the company of the applicants and does not want to further prosecute the complaint. However, as the offence is registered for an offence punishable u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which is not a compoundable offence within the purview of section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hence the parties are before this Court u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the FIR {4} and further proceedings pursuant to the FIR. 7. This Court had occasion to deal with such type of matter i.e. Criminal Application No.1847/2010. This Court in paragraphs No.8 and 9 of the order dated 21st June 2010 has observed thus- 8. During the course of submissions, both the sides placed reliance on the ruling given by the Apex Court in the matter of B.S.Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003, SC 1386 wherein it is observed that the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 47, does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of The Cr.P.C. or extraordinary power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Therefore if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. It is further observed in para no.12 of the said judgment that the special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 9. So far as the facts of the matter before the Apex Court is concerned, there was matrimonial dispute between the parties, which was settled by the parties out of Court, but by virtue of hurdle about compounding of offences u/s. 320(1) of The Cr.P.C., the offences can {5} be compounded by the parties without leave of the court and by virtue of the provisions u/s. 320(2) of The Cr.P.C. The question arose, if the offence, which do not cover to be compounded, either under Sub Clause 1 or 2 of Section 320 of The Cr.P.C., but in the interest of justice and to maintain the harmony between the parties, and particularly in the matrimonial matters, where due to some mis-understanding or otherwise, criminal cases are filed, but later on after the clouds of doubt were over and the parties have genuinely agreed to settle the dispute finally, then it is observed in para no.15 onwards of the judgment that in such cases, after examining genuineness of the facts, the High Court can use its inherent powers and can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C. 8. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the above referred observations. Though the offence punishable u/s 498-A is not compoundable, yet as the parties have amicably settled the matrimonial dispute and considering the submissions advanced across the bar, this Court is of the view that when the parties have settled the matrimonial dispute amicably and are now residing happily it is not desirable to keep the offence pending. In the premise, the application deserves to be allowed by quashing of the impugned FIR. 9. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.11/2010 registered with Ambhora police station, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent {6} No.3, is hereby quashed and set aside. Investigation, if any, carried out in connection with the said offence need not be forwarded to the concerned criminal court and the proceedings of CR No. 11/2010 be dropped. 10. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1467-10