1 2552.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2552 OF 2011 Mr.Zahur Ahmed Mohd Iqbal Chunawala and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. Ms.Sartaj Shaikh for the petitioner. P.S.Hingorani, A.P.P. for the respondent-State. Aniket Vagal for respondent No.2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED : 7th September 2011. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith, by consent. 3. Learned A.P.P. waives service for respondent No.1. Mr.Vagal waives service for respondent No.2, who undertakes to file vakalatnama in the course of the day. 2 2552.11-wp 4. The relief claimed in this petition is for quashing of F.I.R. vide C.R.No.230/2011 registered at the instance of respondent No.2 at Versova Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is noticed that the incident in question is essentially pertaining to matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 who were married on 27th December 2008. The matrimonial issues have now been amicably resolved between the parties. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have already executed deed of divorce (talaqnama) dated 24th August 2011. As per the arrangement referred to in the deed of divorce (talaqnama), it is agreed by respondent No.2 that she will not precipitate the complaint registered by her against the petitioners herein and she will extend her consent for quashing of F.I.R. The said position is reiterated by respondent No.2 who is personally present in the Court along with her parents. She submits that she has agreed for the said arrangement with full understanding and without any duress or coercion from any quarter. Learned A.P.P. submits that since the offence is not compoundable offence, he may leave it to the Court to consider the request of the private parties. 5. In our considered opinion, since petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have amicably resolved all their matrimonial issues and have decided to part company of each other and to begin their future career anew, it would be in the interest of justice of all concerned that the relief claimed in this petition in terms of prayer clause (b) is granted. The respondent No.2 has no intention of 3 2552.11-wp pursuing any criminal action against the petitioners. As aforesaid she has given declaration that she would give consent for quashing of F.I.R. Besides, the parents of respondent No.2 are also supporting the stand taken by respondent No.2. 6. Taking overall view of the matter, in the interest of justice, we allow this petition in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus: “(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash FIR vide C.R.No.230 OF 2011 filed by the Respondent No.2/ Original Complainant at Versova Police Station for alleged offences punishable under sections 498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506, 43 of INDIAN PENAL CODE against the Petitioners on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” Ordered accordingly. ( P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)