1 1158.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1158 OF 2011 Aditya Vinay Shrivastav ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents ...... Mr.Pradeep Rajput for petitioner. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ....... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.G.KETKAR, JJ. (IN CHAMBERS) DATED:- NOVEMBER 15, 2011. P.C. 1. Petitioner and respondent No.2 are personally present along with their relatives. The respondent No.2 is accompanied by her grandmother. She has been identified not only by respondent No.2 but also by the petitioner. The Ration Card and Election Identity Card has been verified by the Police Officer and is prima facie found to be genuine. The petitioner is accompanied by his elder sister Ritu Srivastava and cousin brother Vinod Kumar. 2 1158.11.sxw 2. The Petition is for quashing of FIR registered as CR No.433/2010 with Versova Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 and Sections 376, 377 and 315 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the said offence was the outcome of personal dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 because of their relationship preceding their marriage, which was solemnised on 26th August, 2011 and registered on 4th November, 2011. 3. The parties have now amicably settled all their disputes and intend to live together pursuant to marriage solemnised on 26th August, 2011. It is also stated that no other dispute is pending between the parties. The parties have executed Consent Terms on 20th January, 2011 which is appended as Exhibit `B’ to this Petition recording all the terms and conditions on which amicable settlement has been arrived at between them. The petitioner has undertaken that he shall not harass, threaten, assault, humiliate, abuse or take undue suspicion on the respondent No.2 in future. That undertaking is part of the Consent Terms executed between the parties. As a result, the respondent No.2 is also not keen on prosecuting the criminal action against the petitioner. In view of the changed situation, both parties jointly pray for 3 1158.11.sxw quashing of FIR No.433/2010 registered with Versova Police Station dated 12th December, 2010. The learned A.P.P., on instructions of the Investigating Officer P.I.Mr.Tarate (presently attached to North Central Zone, Mumbai), states that investigation is complete but charge-sheet is yet to be filed. She further states that no other offence is registered against the petitioner known to Versova Police Station. 4. To reassure ourselves that the parties want to take their amicable settlement recorded in Consent Terms dated 20th January, 2011 forward, we asked the parties to keep their respective relatives present before final order is passed on this Petition. Accordingly, the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 have kept their respective relatives present in Chambers. We have interacted with them to reassure ourselves that the parties are still keen on acting upon the Consent Terms executed between them. As the settlement is in respect of issues which arose out of private dispute and, if accepted, would not affect public policy as such, we are inclined to accede to the joint request made by the petitioner and respondent No.2, in the interest of justice, to quash the impugned C.R.No.433/2010 registered with Versova Police Station. We order accordingly. 4 1158.11.sxw 5. While parting, we may place on record concern expressed by the grandmother of the respondent No.2 that after this proceedings are disposed of, there is no guarantee that the petitioner would not resort to misbehaviour with respondent No.2. In response, the petitioner reiterates his assurance and undertaking given by him as recorded in the Consent Terms dated 20th January, 2011. The respondent No.2 also is confident that petitioner will continue to abide by the terms specified in the Consent Terms dated 20th January, 2011. Since both the parties repose confidence in each other, nothing further requires to be recorded in the context of the apprehension expressed by the grandmother of the respondent No.2. Photostat copy of the Certificate of registration of Marriage of petitioner and respondent No.2 is taken on record and marked `X’ for the sake of identification. 6. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)