1 apl.642.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 642 of 2011 Kiran Kundlik Karvande & ors. ....Applicants v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicants. Ms. Janki Doshi for respondent no.2. Ms. A.T.Jhaveri-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 18th July, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present petition the petitioners are praying for quashing the proceedings in CC No. 243/PW/2011. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married to each other on 17th May, 2009. 3. It appears that after the marriage there was a matrimonial dispute between the applicant no.1 and the respondent no.2 and as such the aforesaid criminal proceedings came to be initiated at the request of respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498 A, 406 read with 34 of the IPC. 4. The matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The respondent no. 2 has filed an affidavit in reply stating therein that dispute between herself and the applicant has been resolved. The respondent no.2 is residing with the 2 apl.642.11.sxw applicant no.1. Both theapplicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are personally present in the Court and they reiterate the same. 5. It can, therefore, be seen that the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute. It can further be seen that the parties have agreed to give an end to the criminal litigations pending between them. 6. The Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that this Court should encourage settlement of matrimonial disputes by exercising extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 498 A of the IPC. 7. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B.R. GAVAI, J)