-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1000 OF 2006 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1000 OF 2006 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1000 OF 2006 Mrs. Gaganpreet Kaur Sachar .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. --- Mr. Bipin Joshi for the Petitioner. Dr. F.R.Shaikh, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. --- CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED : 08TH JUNE, 2006. DATED : 08TH JUNE, 2006. DATED : 08TH JUNE, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This petition is for quashing the FIR in C.R. No. 632 of 2000 (221/PS/2005), pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla. The dispute is between wife, the petitioner herein, her husband and her father-in-law. The husband is not present in the court. His Advocate states that he has instructions that the parties have arrived at a compromise and copy of the compromise has been filed at Annexure ‘B’ to the petition. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana & B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana & B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana & -: 2 :- Anr., Anr., Anr., reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, wherein in the matrimonial dispute the Supreme Court has permitted quashing of FIR or complaint even though the offences are non-compoundable. 2. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the consent given by the parties in their consent terms at Exh.‘B’ to the petition, the prayer (a) to the petition is allowed. The petition is disposed of. 3. Parties are present in the court and they reaffirm that there has been a voluntary consent between them. 4. Certified copy expedited. (D.G.DESHPANDE,J) Dt.08.06.2006 (S.A. BOBDE, J) .....