-: 1 :- wp-3174/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3174 OF 2010 Manisha Sudarshan Anavade. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. K. Shinde i/b Zia Ul Mustafa for the petitioner. Mr.Yakub Shaikh for R-2 to 4. Mr. Rajesh More APP for R-1. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : December 1, 2011. P. C. : 1. At the outset, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the prayer clauses of the petition. Leave is granted. Necessary amendments be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of parties. 3. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner–wife against respondents nos. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 323 and 504 srp -: 2 :- wp-3174/10 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner and respondent no.2 got married on 14/4/2000. The petitioner– wife filed FIR against respondent nos.2 to 4, who are her husband and in-laws respectively, for the offences mentioned above. After investigation the police have filed charge sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik. The CJM, Nashik by his order dated 9/6/2005 convicted respondent nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under section 498A read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are further convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days each. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 504 read with 34 of IPC. Respondent no.4 is also acquitted of the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC . Accused – Respondent nos. 2 to 4 challenged this order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik by filing Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2005 and same is pending for final disposal. -: 3 :- wp-3174/10 4. In the meanwhile, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. The petitioner–wife has started leaving with respondent no.2–husband since 2006 and they have begotten one daughter by name “Sai”. Now, they are co- habiting as husband and wife and living under one shelter. In these circumstances, the petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 4 jointly filed application at Exhibit-23 in the pending appeal before the lower appellate Court for compounding the offence. The said application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the order dated 26/6/2009. The petitioner– original complainant thereafter has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for quashing the criminal proceedings. 5. The matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 4 is already settled. The petitioner and respondent no.2 are cohabiting as husband and wife since last 5 yeas and even they have begotten one daughter in 2008. The petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 4 are personally present before this Court. On query all of they have stated that they have gone through the petition and they have -: 4 :- wp-3174/10 understood the contents of the same. The petitioner/ complainant–wife submitted that she does not want to proceed with the criminal case and she wants same to be quashed. 6. Perusal of the criminal proceedings would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature and there is no element of public law involved in the crime. 7. The Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(1) Mh.L.J.(Crim)529] had an occasion to consider the scope of powers under section 482 of the Code. After taking survey of various provisions of law and ratios laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, the Full Bench held that powers under section 482 of the Code can neither be limited nor curtailed by any other provision of the Code including section 320 of the Code and this Court can exercise its powers under section 482 in offences of any kind, whether compoundable nor non-compoundable. The Apex Court in the circumstances similar to the present case, quashed the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc v. State of M.P.& Anr. [2009 Cri.L.J. 331]. -: 5 :- wp-3174/10 8. In view of the ratios laid down in above decisions and especially in Abasaheb’s case supra, I find no purpose will be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. Accordingly they are quashed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). Consequently, the judgment and order dated 9/6/2005 passed by the CJM, Nashik in RCC No. 506 of 2002 is quashed and set aside. In view of above, Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2005 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik is rendered infructuous and same is disposed of as such. (RANJIT MORE, J.)