1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4271 OF 2008 Niranjan Pradeep Shirke & Ors. ..Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. K. S. Patil for Applicants. Ms. M. H. Mhatre – APP for State. Mr. S. A. Sawant i/b. Mr. S. M. Suryawanshi for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. The applicants have approached this Court for quashing the prosecution against them under Section 498-A, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Panal Code 2. The main contention on behalf of the applicants arises out of the relationship between the parties. The applicants are the complainant’s elder sister’s husband and his parents. There is no dispute about this relationship. 2 However, for the reasons best known to the complainant she has named the applicants as accused in a complaint under Section 498-A primarily filed against her husband her own in-laws. 3. Mr. Patil the learned counsel for the applicants relied on Section 498- A which provides for punishment to the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman alone. Section 498-A reads as follows :- “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine;” According to the learned counsel therefore it is not permissible for the complainant to prosecute her elder sister’s husband and his parents, i.e. the applicants herein. 4. The contention of the applicants must be upheld. Indeed, Section 498-A in terms makes any person “being husband or the relative of husband of a woman” who subjects such a woman to cruelty punishable with imprisonment and fine. Under this provision it is not permissible to 3 prosecute others such as the applicants. In this view, the prosecution under Section 498-A is liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Sawant the learned counsel for the respondent – complainant however submits that the parties have even otherwise settled the dispute between them under Section 498-A and 420 of Indian Penal Code and have filed the consent terms on 11th September 2009 for giving effect to a decree for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court No. 1 at Family Court Pune. A photocopy of those consent terms dated 11th September, 2009, is tendered on record. The same is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 6. It appears that there is a comprehensive settlement between the parties as to all matters in dispute including articles given and taken at the time of marriage. Under clause 8 the complainant – respondent has given a specific undertaking to withdraw the prospection under Section 498-A. 7. Mr. Sawant the learned counsel for the complainant - respondent also joins the applicants in the prayer for quashing of the prosecution. Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of prayer (a), which reads as follows : 4 “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may pass appropriate orders and quash and set aside all the proceedings arising out of and the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 369/2008 registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune for offences punishable u/s. 498-A, 420 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. as against the Petitioners;” 8. Order accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)