1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1323 OF 2011 Shankar Rama Gorule and others Applicants versus Mrs.Sushma Vikas Gorule and another Respondents Mr.Vijay Chavan for applicants. Mr.D.R.More, APP for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present criminal application the applicants pray for quashing proceedings of Criminal Case No.309/PW/2010 pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Bhoiwada, Mumbai arising out of CR No.103 of 2010 registered with N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station at the instance of respondent no.1 under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 406 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The marriage of the applicant no.2 with respondent no.1 was solemnized on 6th May 2009 and in view of the matrimonial dispute the parties are residing separately since 12th November 2009. Respondent no.1 has filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court against applicant no.2 and the same is pending. Respondent no.1 has also filed complaint under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, 2 Bhoiwada, Mumbai. 4. During pendency of the above proceedings the parties have arrived at settlement. The parties have entered into consent terms copy whereof is annexed at Exhibit-B to this application. Under the consent terms, respondent no.1 has agreed to give no objection/consent for quashing of CC No.309/PW/2010. Applicant no.2 in terms has agreed to give consent for divorce by mutual consent. Respondent no.1 further agreed to withdraw application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Respondent no.1 has further agreed not to claim any maintenance. The respondent no.1 has also filed affidavit-in-reply at Exhibit-C, page 70. In paragraph 7 she has in terms stated that she has no objection to allow this application and to quash CC No.309/PW/2010. 5. All the applicants as well as respondent no.1 are present in Court. On making query the respondent no.1 reiterates the contents of the consent terms and the affidavit-in-reply. 6. It can thus be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008)4- SCC-582, I find that no purpose would 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. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 7. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs.3,000/-. Costs to be paid by the applicants by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare 3 Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matters. (RANJIT MORE, J.)