hvn 56//apl//1028.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1028 OF 2011 Mr. Ashok Jayentilal Shishodia and Ors. ... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for Respondent no. 2. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : OCTOBER 14, 2011 P.C. Heard counsel for both sides. The learned A.P.P. waives service for State. The parties are present and are identified by the respective counsel. The applicants herein are arraigned as accused in complaint filed by respondent no.2 who is wife of applicant no. 1 being C.R. No. 256 of 2008 at N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station for the offence punishable under section 498A, 406 read with 34 of I.P.C. and under section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Dowry Act. The couple has resolved 1 hvn 56//apl//1028.11 their controversy before the learned Judge, Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. F/447 of 2011 whereby joint application is allowed by the learned Judge. In the joint application moved before the Family Court, both the parties had agreed to even terminate criminal prosecution initiated by wife Smt. Rajashree. It was agreed that in view of the order of learned Judge, Family Court dated 16.9.2011, on the wife Smt. Rajashree withdrawing the criminal prosecution, the applicants would pay the balance amount of Rs. 20 lacs. (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) at the time of quashing of complaint, which is mentioned in clause 9 of the said petition. In pursuance of said settlement between the parties, the applicants have handed over two Pay orders one is for Rs.15,40,000/- and another for Rs.4,60,000/- both dated 14.11.2011 being Pay Order No. 011377 and 011376 respectively. Respondent Smt. Rajashree has received the pay orders from the applicants. She admits of receiving Pay Orders. She has no objection to terminate the proceedings referred above initiated by her. Taking survey of the above facts, proceedings referred to above initiated by respondent no. 2 Smt. Rajashree are quashed and set aside. The bail bonds if any of the applicants are also terminated. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 2