rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 628 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 628 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 628 OF 2008 Nandlal Kumbandas Tontai & Ors. ..Applicants V/s. Smt.Nisha & Richa Kirankumar Totai & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.L.P.Kanal for the Applicant. Mr.Shilendra Kantharia for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.R.Shinde - A.P.P. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The Applicant No. 3 and Respondent No. 1 were married in the year 1998. Matrimonial dispute arose rendering the marriage unworkable. The various proceedings in the nature of application for maintenance, so also the complaint under section 498A, 406 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code were intitated by Respondent No.1. Ultimately the parties entered into a compromise and by filing consent terms the marriage came to be dissolved by decree of divorce under the consent terms filed in Writ Petition No. 8713 of 2006. The Respondent No.1 wife has been paid permanent alimony in the sum of Rs.5,50,000.00 towards full and final settlement as per the consent terms. Jewellery also came to be handed over by the Applicant 2 No.3 to the wife. There is no issue from the marital wedlock. One of the terms of the compromise relate to withdrawal of the proceeding initiated by the Respondent No.1 under section 498A, 406 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered as C.R.No.47 of 2004 numbered as case No.191/PW/05 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 49 Vikhroli Court. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant has contended that as the complaint itself was filed because of misunderstanding, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, and that the Respondent No.1 wife is not desirous of proceeding with the same. The consent terms reveals that all the disputes are resolved amicably between the parties. In my opinion, quashing of the criminal proceedings would be in the interest of justice. The Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit reiterating the fact that the proceedings were intitated because of misunderstanding between the parties. The Respondent No.1 is present in the Court and she is represented by a lawyer. It is an admitted position that the Respondent No.1 is not desirous of proceedings with the criminal case and permanent alimony has been paid under the consent terms. In the result, I proceed to allow the Application and quash and set aside C.C.No.191/PW/05 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 49th 3 Vikhroli, Mumbai for the offence punishable under section 498A, 406 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Application stands disposed off. An affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.)