1 WP: 293/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.293 OF 2010 Pavan Ramjilal Choudhary & Ors. .... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. E.A. Sasi, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.R. Kamath, Advocate for respondent no.1. Coram : A.S. OKA J. Date : 27th September 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 227 Constitution of India read with 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prayer is made for quashing the prosecution, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalyan, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 and 406 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent is the first informant. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The second and third petitioners are the parents of the 1st petitioner. The 2 WP: 293/2010 prosecution was initiated on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the 2nd respondent. 3. It appears that in a pending matrimonial petition in the Family Court at Mumbai, the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent filed consent terms, under which the 1st petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- towards the lumpsum maintenance to the 2nd respondent. Accordingly the amount has been deposited by the 1st petitioner in the Family Court on 31st December 2007. In the consent terms, the 2nd respondent agreed for quashing the criminal proceedings. On the basis of consent terms, a decree has been passed by the Family Court on 31st December 2007, by which the marriage solemnized between the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. 4. The facts stated above have been confirmed by the 2nd respondent in her affidavit dated 5th August 2011. 5. It is apparent that the matrimonial dispute between 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent led to the lodging of F.I.R. Now there appears to be a complete settlement in the matrimonial dispute. Therefore, now no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. Continuation of prosecution will cause undue harassment to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this 3 WP: 293/2010 is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case. 6. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.S. OKA, J)