vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2008 Vishal Surinder Kumar Bhasin & Ors. ... Applicants V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Iqbal Solkar Mane for Applicants Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP, for State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: MAY 2, 2008 MAY 2, 2008 MAY 2, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Applicant No.1 is the husband of the Respondent No.2, herein i.e., the complainant. Applicant Nos.2 to 6 are their relatives. Matrimonial disputes arose between them due to which offences were registered against him vide MECR No.4 of 2006 with the Byculla Police Station under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the complainant and the applicant No.1 have settled their matrimonial dispute and are residing together as man and wife. 2. Respondent No.2 is present in Court. I have ascertained from her that she does not wish to continue with the prosecution. 3. Since this dispute is primarily a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and Respondent No.2 and : 2 : Respondent No.2 does not wish to proceed with the criminal complaint filed against the applicants, it would be futile to continue the proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. This is because the prosecution would in all probability not end in a conviction. It would be unnecessary to keep such proceedings pending as held in the case of B.S. Joshi v/s. State of Haryana & anr. reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 AIR 2003 SC 1386 AIR 2003 SC 1386. In the circumstances of the case, C.C. No.5/I&R/06 and the complaint No.28/Misc/2006 are quashed and set aside. 4. Criminal application is disposed of accordingly.