1 cri-wp-735-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 735 OF 2011 Mr. Sukumar S. Jain and ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents Ms. M. P. Panchakshari for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for respondent no.1-State. Ms. K.H. Rajani for respondent no.2. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 21, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. 2. Mr. Gadkari, the learned APP, waives service for the State of Maharashtra and Ms. Rajani, the learned counsel, waives service for respondent no.2. By consent of the parties, the petitioner is heard finally. 2 cri-wp-735-11.doc 3. The petitioner and respondent no.2 were married on 29/6/2004. However, the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 5/3/2011. The decree of divorce dated 5/3/2011 clearly stated that both the parties are not entitled to claim any maintenance from each other subject to the consent terms at Exh. 28 which would form part of a decree. A copy of Exh. 28 has been annexed to this petition and it is noted that the petitioner no.1-husband agreed to pay by way of permanent maintenance and alimony a sum of Rs.21 lakhs and there is no dispute that the said amount has been deposited with the Family Court. The respondent no.2-wife is entitled to make an application and to receive the said amount of Rs.21 lakhs after FIR No. 481 of 2010 lodged by her with the Vartak Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 (II) read with Section 34 of IPC as well as the domestic violence complaint bearing No. 506 of 2010 pending before the JMFC, 2nd Court at Thane is either quashed or withdrawn as per Clause 7 of the said consent terms. 4. So as to comply with the consent terms, the respondent no.2- wife approached the Vartak Nagar Police Station to withdraw her 3 cri-wp-735-11.doc complaint and as the petitioner no.1-husband also joined her and there was no positive response from the police machinery, this petition has been moved by the husband and his parents who are the accused in FIR No. 481 of 2010. 5. As directed by us, both the parties again went to the Vartak Nagar Police Station on 29/6/2011 and the respondent no.2-wife submitted fresh application praying to close her complaint registered as FIR No. 481 of 2010. Mr. Gadkari, the learned APP, on instructions, states that the letter dated 29/6/2011 addressed by the respondent no.2- wife has been received by the police station and he further pointed out that once an FIR has been registered, the police have no powers to close investigation. The police is duty bound to investigate into the FIR and submit the final report to the competent authority. We do not find any fault with the view taken by the police station. 6. It is under these circumstances that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed before us to quash the FIR. There is no dispute between the petitioners on one hand and the respondent no.2 on the other that the 4 cri-wp-735-11.doc marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 5/3/2011 by mutual consent and the respondent no.2 is not entitled to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs.21 lakhs from the Family Court at Thane unless FIR No. 481 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. We do not doubt the bonafides of the respondent no.2-wife to withdraw the complaint filed by her with the Vartak Nagar Police Station in which the petitioners have been arraigned as the accused. It is in the interest of both the parties and more particularly the respondent no.2 that the FIR registered by her is quashed. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has three parts and the third part speaks of invoking the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the ends of justice. The grievance of respondent no.2 in her complaint to the police was of personal nature and after the complaint was filed, both the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 decided to break the matrimonial ties by consent and the consent terms annexed to the decree of divorce clearly show that the personal differences between the petitioners on one hand and the respondent no.2 on the other have been finally settled / set at rest. We are, therefore, satisfied that this is a fit case to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. so as to secure the ends of justice and to do justice to both the parties i.e. the petitioners and respondent no.2. While doing so, we are 5 cri-wp-735-11.doc aware that the offence under Section 498-A is not compoundable and the offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court. 7. In the premises, the petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)