1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1069 OF 2010 Sandeep Ramchandra Mane & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr. Abhijeet J. Kandarkar for Petitioners Mrs. R.V. Newton APP for State Mr.Amey Tambane for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 3RD MAY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 92 of 2007 which is registered with the M.H.B. Colony Police Station, Borivali (W), Mumbai. The Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 got married at Mumbai on 29/12/2002. The respondent No.2 1 filed the FIR against the Petitioners on 5.5.2007 under section 498A r/w. section 34 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent No.2 initially filed a petition against the Petitioner No.1 in 2008 in the Family Court at Bandra. On 10.10.2008, the consent terms were filed before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai and the consent terms were converted into the petition for divorce by mutual consent. The petition was partly allowed and appeal was filed by the Respondent No.2 against the said order in this Court. The matter, however, settled in this Court on 17.2.2010 and the consent terms were filed in this Court. 3. In the consent terms, the Respondent No.2 has agreed to co-operative with the Petitioners for getting FIR quashed. The Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and she has stated that she has no objection if the criminal complaint filed by her against the Petitioners is quashed. 4. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386, in my view, therefore, it would be appropriate to quash the said criminal case in view of the consent terms filed by the Respondent No.2 and since the Respondent 1 No.2 has given no objection for quashing the said FIR. 5. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. FIR No. 92 of 2007 dated 5.5.2007 registered with the M.H.B. Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and C.C. No. 4164/PW/2008 pending before the Court of 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 12a. (V.M. KANADE J.)