bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1762 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1762 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1762 OF 2007 Mr.Manoj Kumar s/o Mahendra Kumar Kabra & 4 ors. ... Petitioners v/s 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Pooja Manoj Kumar Kabra ... Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the petitioners. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 State. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2008 24TH JUNE, 2008 24TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 states that the claim affidavit of the respondent No.2 to be filed in the Family Court is ready and the respondent No.2 will file the same on 26.6.2008. It appears that the Demand Draft for Rs.9,50,000/- which has been revalidated is already deposited with the Family Court. That Demand Draft be handed over to the respondent No.2 on 26.6.2008 after the decree of divorce by mutual consent is passed. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing 2 of the proceedings in R.C.C.No.207 of 2006 and M.A.181 of 2006 pending before the 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiwandi, arising out of F.I.R. No.I-216 of 2005. 3. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. They have agreed that their matrimonial dispute would be settled by mutual consent and in fact the consent terms have already been filed in the Family Court. One of the terms of the consent terms is that the respondent No.2 would be paid an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-. The demand draft for this amount is deposited in the Family Court. Another term of the consent terms is that, the respondent No.2 would have no grievance against the petitioner and the members of his family i.e. petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and that she would have no objection if the proceedings in R.C.C. No.207 of 2006 are quashed. 4. An affidavit of the respondent No.2 who is present in Court has been filed. She has also stated in Court that she has no grievance against any of the petitioners and that she has no objection if the F.I.R. and the proceedings before the J.M.F.C. are quashed. 5. In this view of the matter, the F.I.R.No.I-216 of 3 2005 and the criminal case arising therefrom could be quashed. The F.I.R. is registered in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. These offences are essentially personal in nature inasmuch as the respondent No.2 has made serious allegations against the petitioners. She does not now want to prosecute with the complaint. In the case of B.S.Joshi & ors. v/s B.S.Joshi & ors. v/s B.S.Joshi & ors. v/s State State State of Haryana & anr. reported in A.I.R. 2003 SC of Haryana & anr. reported in A.I.R. 2003 SC of Haryana & anr. reported in A.I.R. 2003 SC 1386, 1386, 1386, the Supreme Court has observed that the proceedings pending before the trial Court in such circumstances can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. If the criminal case is continued in all probability there would be no evidence in support of the prosecution case, the respondent No.2 having settled her dispute with the petitioners. 6. The petition is, therefore, allowed. 7. Proceedings in respect of R.C.C.No.207 of 2006 pending before the 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiwandi and F.I.R. No.I-216 of 2005 are quashed and set aside. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.