vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.889 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.889 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.889 OF 2008 Kashish Anand Asaropota nee Aarti Dilip Wadhwani ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.D. Nangre for Applicant Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for Respondent No.1-State Mr.Noor Memon for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 17, 2008 APRIL 17, 2008 APRIL 17, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This application has been filed by the wife of Respondent No.2. She had filed a complaint alleging her husband and his relatives had committed offences under sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. A M.J. Petition was also filed by the applicant before the Family Court at Bandra which has resulted in consent terms. Consent terms have been filed in M.J. Petition No.A-372 of 2008. Under the consent terms, an amount of Rs.50 lacs was to be paid to the petitioner in full and final settlement towards maintainance, alimony and residence. This amount has already been deposited in the Family Court. 2. It is averred in the application that the applicant who is present in Court has no grievance : 2 : against Respondent Nos.2 to 7. A direction of this Court has been sought to quash the proceedings bearing C.C.No.8/PW/2008 arising out of C.R. No.104 of 2006. 3. I have enquired with the applicant who is present in Court as to whether she has in fact settled the dispute with the respondents and whether the amount of Rs.50 lacs has been deposited in the Family Court. The applicant has answered in the affirmative to both these questions. 4. In this view of the matter, it would be meaningless to keep the prosecution pending when it would not result in in conviction. The Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v/s. State of Haryana & anr. reported in AAIR 2003 SC 1386 AAIR 2003 SC 1386 AAIR 2003 SC 1386 has held thus: ".... What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the F.I.R. of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the F.I.R. was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other : 3 : family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides." 5. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the proceedings bearing C.C.No.8/PW/2008 arising out of C.R. No.104 of 2006 are quashed and set aside. 5. Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.