-: 1 :- apl-1143/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPL. NO. 1143 OF 2011 Shashikant S. Atri & Others. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Prashant Badole for the petitioners. Mr. D. R. More, APP. Mrs. S. Bagade i/b S. D. Bagade for R-2. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : December 5, 2011. P. C. : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. By the present petition, the petitioners pray for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.3897/PW/08 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court at Borivali, Mumbai. The FIR bearing No. 188/07, on the basis of which the above criminal case has been filed by Kandiali (West) Police Station, was lodged by respondent no.2 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406 read with 34 of IPC. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 got married on 22/2/2007, however, both are residing separately since April 2007. Both petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have agreed srp -: 2 :- apl-1143/11 to take divorce by mutual consent.. Accordingly they have filed proceeding in the Family Court under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Copy of the consent terms is filed at Exhibit-B of this petition. 3. Thus, it is clear that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.2 is settled amicably out of Court. Respondent no.2 has also filed affidavit at Exhibit-C wherein she has re-iterated and re-affirmed that the dispute is settled and consent terms are being filed for divorce by mutual consent in the Family Court. In paragraph no.3 she has stated that she has no objection to quash the proceedings of criminal case arising out of complaint registered by her for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC. 4. The petitioners and respondent no.2 are present before this court. On query, respondent no.2 has stated that she has gone through memo of the petition, consent terms as well as affidavit. She states that she has no objection if the criminal proceedings against the petitioners initiated at her instance for the offence punishable under section 498A are quashed. 5. Thus, it can be seen that the parties have settled their dispute amicably. From the perusal of complaint it would reveal that the allegations made therein are personal in nature -: 3 :- apl-1143/11 and there is no element of public law involved in the crime. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaid criminal proceeding 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 aforesaid criminal proceeding is required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their personal disputes. 7. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), however, subject to costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-. Costs to be paid by the Petitioners by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of three weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matter. (RANJIT MORE, J.)