1 apl.710.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 710 of 2011 Nikunj Kanji Shah & ors. ....Applicants v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mrs. P..J. Kanani for the applicants. Mr. D.S. Jain i/b. P.M. Shah for the respondents. Mr. S.S. Pednekar-APP for the respondents. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 29th July, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the criminal case no.102/PW/2009 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar for the offence punishable under Section 498 A, 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married to each other on 21st April, 2008. However, immediately after their marriage the differences arose between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2. Out of the said differences an FIR came to be lodged against the present petitioners at the instance of respondent no.2. Consequently, the aforesaid criminal proceedings were initiated. 2 apl.710.11.sxw 4. The parties have filed consent terms in MJ Petition No. A-373/2010. The parties have decided to seek divorce by mutual consent. 5. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 are personally present in the Court and they reiterate about the settlement. 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 (b). (B.R. GAVAI, J)