1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAQL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1075 OF 2010 Adnan Mairaj Siddiqui and ors .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr .. Respondents Mr Parvez Ubharay, for the petitioners. Mrs A.S.Pai, APP, for respondent no.1. Mr S.shamim i/b Shamim & Co for respondent no.2. Petitioner in-person present. Respondent no.2 in-person present. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & R.V.MORE,JJ. DATE : 22/04/2010. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, Rule returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent, petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner nos 1,2 and 3 respectively are the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent no.2. They have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the FIR dated 23.2.2010 lodged by respondent no.2 at Versova Police Station, Mumbai, T 2 bearing FIR No.69 of 2010. The petitioners have also placed on record the affidavit dated 8.4.2010 of respondent no.2. In the affidavit, respondent no.2 has stated that she has amicably settled all the disputes with the petitioners. She has further stated that she intends to withdraw the complaint filed by her dated 23.2.2010 at Versova Police Station, being FIR No.69 of 2010, under section 498-A of IPC. The petitioners have also placed on record the Khulanama/Divorce Deed dated 8.4.2010, by which petitioner no.1 has divorced respondent no.2. In the Divorce Deed also they have made reference to FIR No.69 of 2010, stating that respondent no.2 has unconditionally agreed to withdraw the allegations made by her in the complaint. We have perused all the documents produced by the petitioners on record. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 are present in the court. Respondent no.2 confirms the divorce under the Khulanama/Divorce Deed dated 8.4.2010. She states that she has read and understood the contents of the affidavit dated 8.4.2010 so also the petition and she has no objection for quashing the FIR in view of the settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme court in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 Supreme court 1386, and submitted that this is a fit case where this court should exercise inherent powers and quash the FIR. 3 We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi’s case. Keeping the ratio laid down in the said judgment in view so also the other documents placed on record by the parties and more particularly the affidavit dated 8.4.2010 and the Khulanama/Divorce Deed dated 8.4.2010, we make the writ petition absolute in terms of the prayer clause (a). Rule is accordingly disposed of. (R.V.More,J.) (D. B. Bhosale, J.)