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.1306 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1306 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1306 OF 2008. Sureshsingh Dharamsingh Chitodia & Ors..Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2008. Bullusingh Khajansingh Chitodia & Ors ..Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, for the Petitioners in both the petitions. Mr. M.S. Karnik, for the Respondent No.2 in both the petitions. Ms. A.T. Jhaveri, APP, for Respondent No.1 in both the petitions. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11TH JULY,2008. : 11TH JULY,2008. : 11TH JULY,2008. P.C. 1. Considering the limited controversy involved in the writ petitions, the same are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. In writ petition no.1306/2008, the first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. The second and the third petitioners are the parents of the first petitioner and the fourth petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner. 3. In the writ petition no.1307/2008, the first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and the second and third petitioners are the parents of the first petitioner. 4. In both the petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prayer is for quashing criminal proceeding on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the second respondent. In both the petitions, the action of lodging the F.I.R. is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent. The allegations made by the second respondent in both the petitions were as regards the commission of offences under sections 498A, 406, 322, 509, 504, 506(A) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is stated in both the petitions that there is a reconciliation between the husband and wife and in both the cases, they have resumed co-habitation. 6. There are separate affidavits filed by the second respondents in both the petitions accepting the correctness of the averments made in the petitions. 7. The criminal law was set in motion as a result of a matrimonial dispute. The matrimonial dispute has been since resolved as is apparent from the averments in the petition as well as what is set out in the affidavits filed by the second respondent in both the petitions. The annexures to the petitions shows that the compromise was arrived at before the eminent persons of the community. 8. In the circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings will cause undue harassment to both the parties. The continuation of prosecution will be an abuse of process of law. Hence, a case is made out for quashing the proceedings by exercising the power under section 482 of the said Code. 9. Hence, in both the writ petitions, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 10. The concerned Courts to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]