1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1945 OF 2010 Dhananjay Dinesh Makwana and others. ..... Applicants. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... Respondents. Mr. H.S.S. Murthy i/b Pinky Bhansali for the applicants. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. The father and the power of attorney holder of Respondent No.2 is present. He has filed an affidavit dated 17th June, 2010 on behalf of Respondent No.2. Applicants have filed this application for quashing the criminal complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants herein out of which Criminal Case No.85/PW/2008 is filed against applicant No.4 and Criminal Case No.221/PW/2008 is filed against applicants Nos. 2 and 3 and these cases are pending in 2 Metropolitan Magistrate’s 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that both the parties amicably settled their matrimonial dispute and consent terms were filed by applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 in this Court in Writ Petition No.4687 of 2009. A copy of the consent terms is annexed to the Petition. In the consent terms, respondent No.2 has given an undertaking to the court not to proceed with the complaint and has also undertaken to extend all cooperation either for quashing or for dismissal of the complaint. Respondent No.2 is now happily remarried. Respondent No.2’s father is present in court and he has filed his affidavit. He has annexed a letter written by the original complainant to the Inspector of Police, Borivali Police Station dated 17/02/2010 in which she has stated that she does not wish to pursue the case. Applicant No.1 who is residing in USA has temporarily come back. However, the Police, promptly, upon coming back of applicant No.1 from USA, tried to arrest him even though they were informed that dispute between the parties has been settled by filing consent terms in this court. Applicants, therefore, have moved this Court for quashing the complaint. 4. Taking into consideration the consent terms filed by the parties in this Court and the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No.2’s father and power of attorney holder, in my view, this is a fit case for quashing the said complaint. 3 The complaint which has been filed by respondent No.2 is essentially a personal complaint against the applicants herein and in view of the several judgments of this Court as also of the Apex Court, no useful purpose will be served in keeping these criminal cases pending after parties have resolved their disputes and differences and decree of divorce also has been granted by the competent court. The Apex Court also in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana1 has held that this Court has power to quash the complaint filed under section 498A upon resolution of disputes between the husband and wife. 5. In this view of the matter, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The warrant of arrest, if any, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Borivali is also quashed. Officer of the Borivali Police Station, who is present in court, has taken cognizance of this order passed by the Court and he shall communicate this order to the concerned Investigating Officer. 6. Application is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 1 AIR 2003 SC 1386 4