1 cri-wp-676-2010 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.676 of 2010 Mr.Vijay Shivaji Hotkar Petitioner Vs. The Judicial Magistrate F.C. & ors. Respondent Petitioner in person. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. July 13, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard the petitioner – party in person and Mrs.Shinde, the learned APP appears for the State. 2. The petitioner and respondent no.3 were married on 22/12/1994 and they begot a daughter from the said wedlock. It appears, respondent no.3 – 2 cri-wp-676-2010 wife after about 14 years of married life filed RCC No.186 of 2009 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Daund, Dist. Pune. The petitioner appeared in the said case and the wife having realised that it was in the best interest to protect the matrimonial life submitted an application for withdrawal of the case. When the said application came before the trial Court, neither her Advocate nor the Advocate of the petitioner -accused was present and subsequently she was put in the witness box and as per the petitioner the learned Magistrate proceeded to record her evidence. It is further alleged that despite both the parties time and again urging before the trial Court to discharge the accused, the trial Court has not passed appropriate orders and the Advocates of both the parties are not co-operating. Hence this petition to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings in RCC No.186 of 2009. 3. Respondent no.3 – wife remained present before us and stated that the case pending before the trial Court i.e. RCC No.186 of 2009 is required to be quashed. She further stated that the petitioner and she are staying together and the complaint was filed solely on account of some misunderstanding and in the heat of passion. As per her she was misguided 3 cri-wp-676-2010 in moving the Court and subsequently her Advocate did not co-operate to get her application for dismissal of the case decided. She requested us to allow the petition so as to save her matrimonial life. 4. A certified copy of the Roznama in RCC No.186 of 2009 has been placed before us and the case has been adjourned from time to time on account of the absence of the parties as well as their Advocates. We have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent no.3 supporting the petition. We are satisfied that it is in the best interest of the petitioner and respondent no.3 to allow the petition and quash the proceedings in RCC No.186 of 2009. 5. Hence the petition is allowed and RCC No.186 of 2009 presently pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Daund is hereby quashed and set aside. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)