{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4508 OF 2009 1. Tarun s/o Gulzarilal Sharma Age-28 years, Occ-Service R/o Flat No.8, Plot NO.R-91, Apulki Cooperative Society Shahu Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune 2. Gulzarilal s/o Bodhraj Sharma Age-60 years, Occ-Retired R/o As above 3. Usharani w/o Gulzarilal Sharma Age-55 years, Occ-Household R/o As above 4. Poonam w/o Aslam Baig Age-30 years, Occ-Household R/o As above APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through police station, Vaijapur 2. Sneha w/o Tarun Sharma Age-23 years, Occ-Househodl R/o C/o Kishor A. Punjabi Frontier Cloth Store Tilak Road, Vaijapur Dist-Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.R.Dheple, Advocate for applicants {2} Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State Mr.P.V.Ambade, Advocate for respondent No.2. ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 21st January 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants have approached this Court for quashing of the FIR registered against them at M-Case No.1/2009 with Vaijapur police station for an offence punishable u/s 498 of the IPC. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, this application is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. Brief facts, which gave rise to file the present application, can be summarized thus- a) Applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. Respondent No.2 had filed a private compliant in the Court of JMFC, Vaijapur u/s 498-A of the IPC and for other offence. In the said complaint, an order “to investigate” came to be passed u/s 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. {3} b) On the basis of said directions offence at M-Case No. 1/2009 came to be registered at Vaijapur police station. c) Subsequently, the dispute between the parties has been settled, however as the offence u/s 498-A is non compoundable, the applicants are before this Court. 4. On notice of this application respondent No.2 appeared and filed her affidavit in reply. It is stated that now the dispute between herself and applicant No.1, husband and his relatives, is settled and she has started residing with applicant No.1, she does not want to continue with the complaint and further proceedings of the same. 5. It is the experience of the Court that in number of cases dummy persons are produced before the Court and hence, to avoid further complications, directions were given to the learned counsel to instruct respondent No.2 to remain present in the Court. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is present personally, who is identified by learned counsel representing her. Respondent No.2 has stated that now she has no grievance against the applicants and hence she does not want to prosecute them. 6. Learned counsel for applicants, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the rulings reported in 2004 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 93 in the matter of “B.S.Joshi V/s State of {4} Haryana”, 2005 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 367 in the matter of “Dinesh V/s State of Maharashtra”. Both the judgments, referred above, arouse out of an offence u/s 498 of the IPC. It is observed that though the offence is non compoundable, yet if the parties have settled the dispute and if a statement is made by the wife that she wants to withdraw the complaint, in such circumstances, to maintain the matrimonial relations between the parties and in the interest of justice, application needs to be allowed u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Bearing in mind the ratio laid down in the judgments referred supra and in the interest of welfare of the parties, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the FIR at M-Case No.1/2009 registered with Vaijapur police station for an offence punishable u/s 498-A is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4508-09