-: 1 :- WP3202/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3202 OF 2011 Ashish Kumar Agarwal. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Ms. Malika Ingle for the petitioner. Ms. Kokila Karla for R-2. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 14, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By the present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the criminal proceedings, namely, C.C.No.742/PW/2010 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate 34th Court, Vikroli, Mumbai arising out of FIR no. 347 of 2010 registered with Park Site Police station for alleged offences punishable under sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein. 4. The petitioner and respondent no.2 on 26/9/2011, have filed matrimonial petition in the Family Court at Bandra, being Petition No. F/1628 of 2011, under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent. The parties srp -: 2 :- WP3202/11 have also filed consent terms on the same day. A copy of the said consent terms is annexed to this petition at Exhibit-C. Under the said consent terms, the petitioner agreed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.2.50 lacs to respondent no.2 as and by way of final settlement of divorce. In Clause-11 of the said consent terms, respondent no.2 agreed to withdraw / dispose of / quash criminal case bearing CC. No. 742/PW/2010 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate 34th Court, Vikroli, Mumbai, within one month from the filing of consent terms. Respondent no.2 has filed affidavit dated 14/11/2011 wherein it is stated that dispute between the parties is amicable settled. Respondent no.2 has also stated that she has no objection if the afroesaid criminal proceeding against the petitioner is quashed in view of the divorce by mutual consent in the Family Court at Bandra. 5. The petitioner as well as respondent no.2 are present in the Court. They admit contents of the consent terms and affidavit mentioned above. From the perusal of complaint it would reveal that allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. -: 3 :- WP3202/11 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 7. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause 13(i), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- [Rs. Three thousand only.]. Costs to be paid by the applicant/petitioner by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matter. (RANJIT MORE, J.)