- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1457 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1457 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1457 OF 2008 Bosco Savio D’Costa ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Dilip Churi for the petitioner Mr.D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for State Ms Tanuja Gurav for Respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 12,2008 : AUGUST 12,2008 : AUGUST 12,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. The learned A.P.P waives service for the first Respondent. The learned Advocate for the second Respondent waives service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The first Applicant is the husband of the second Respondent. The second to fifth applicants are the close relatives of the first applicant. The marriage between the first applicant and the second Respondent was solemnised on 9th December 2000. The F.I.R. was lodged by the second respondent alleging commission of offence under section 406, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. In the petition it is stated that there is a complete settlement between the first petitioner and the second respondent which is recorded in the form of consent terms filed in the petition filed by the second respondent in the family court. The petition has been disposed of by the family - 2 - court by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Reliance is placed on clause no.6 of the consent terms by which the second respondent agreed not to prosecute the criminal proceeding. The prayer in this petition is for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement. Inviting my attention to the affidavit of the second respondent, the learned Advocate for the second respondent stated that in view of settlement, the second respondent has no objection if this petition is allowed. 4. The matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent led to filing of the F.I.R. Now, there is a complete settlement in the dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding will now serve no purpose and continuation thereof will cause undue harassment to both the parties. Hence, a case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. 5. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (d). 6. Parties and the concerned court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. - 3 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE