1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (Main)NO.12 OF 2008. Smt. Pratibha D. Gawas alias Pratibha Wankhede, Major, R/o. Ambegal Pale Bicholim, Goa-403 105 .. APPLICANT Versus 1. Mr. Devendra Gawas 2. Ms.Arti Gawas 3. Anant Gawas 4. Deepali Gawas All R.o. Kailas Nagar, Assnora, Bardez, Goa. 5. Tukaram Gawas 6. Ms. Supriya Gawas Both r/o. Massordem, Satari, Goa. 7. State of Goa As represented by Officer-in-Charge, Mapusa Police Station, Mapusa, Goa. .. RESPONDENTS Ms Coroline Collasso,Advocate for the applicant. Ms Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.7. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, to 6. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE,J. Date : - 29th February, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms Collasso, Advocate for the applicant, Ms W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.7, Mr. Bhobe waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and undertakes to 2 file Vakalatnama in the course of the day. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks quashing of criminal case No.76/S/2006/B pending before the J.M.F.C., Bicholim. The above criminal case arises out of the report filed by the applicant against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 alleging the commission of offence U/s.498(A) r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the husband, respondent No.2 is mother-in-law, respondent No.3 is father-in-law, respondent No.4 is the sister-in-law of the applicant and the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are uncle and aunt respectively of the respondent No.1. 3. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant has passed LL.B. from Salgaonkar Law College and presently she is employed at Pune. According to the applicant, she wants to put an end to the disputes between her and the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and start a new life. Moreover, she is not enjoying good health and she has to look after her 2 years old baby. It is, therefore, the case of the applicant that the criminal case which has arisen from the report filed by her be quashed. In support of her submission, Ms Collasso relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others Versus State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR, 2003, 1386. 4. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and 3 learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, this application deserves to be allowed. The Apex Court in B.S.Joshi's case (supra) has permitted quashing of the proceeding which has been initiated U/s.498(A) at the instance of wife. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Ms Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.7 have also submitted that they have no objection if proceedings in criminal case No.76/S/2006/B are quashed. 5. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The Criminal proceedings pending before the J.M.F.C.,Bicholim in Criminal case No.76/S/2006/B are quashed. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 who are accused before the trial Court stands acquitted. Bail bonds furnished before the Magistrate stand discharged. 6. The application stands disposed of. A.P.LAVANDE,J. SMA