IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 213 OF 2008 Anil Prabhakar Dhiwar & Ors. ...... ......Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...... ...Respondents. Mr.J.M.Puranik, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.G.R.Sawant h/f Mr.R.M.Salve, Adv. For the respondent No.2. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 26/2/08 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2 whereas petitioner No.2 is brother of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.3 is sister-in-law of the petitioner No.1. Upon an FIR lodged by respondent No.2 an offence came to be registered against the present petitioners punishable under sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC. Criminal Case No.2225/PW/05 is pending on the file of learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 viz. Husband and wife have filed a petition seeking decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act which is 1 pending o the file Civil Judge, S.D., Kurla bearing Marriage Petition No.453/07. According to the petitioners so also respondent No.2 all the matrimonial disputes are amicably and peacefully resolved by entering into settlement out of Court. Perusal of para 7 of the marriage petition reveals that petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. Out of the said sum Rs.1,50,00/- has been already received by the wife whereas the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been offered today by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2 and a cheque has been handed over to respondent No.2-wife who is present in Court. The cheque is drawn on Central Bank of India dated 25.2.08 the receipt of which respondent No.2 acknowledges. As per the agreement respondent No.2 is entitled to receive balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- only after the quashing of criminal proceedings. In this view of the matter learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that it would be in the interest of respondent No.2 as well if criminal proceedings are quashed as otherwise respondent No.2-wife will not be receiving balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. An affidavit duly sworn by respondent No.2-wife is also placed on record. There is no issue born out of the said wedlock. Both the learned counsel submit that in the peculiar facts of the present case it would be in the interest of justice if criminal proceedings are quashed and parties are permitted to peaceful separation. I am of the clear view that quashing of the said criminal proceedings would be in the interest of all parties. In the result writ petition is allowed. Proceedings in 2 Criminal Case No.2225/PW/05 pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court Kurla, Mumbai are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in above terms. 26.2.08 3