- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3291 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.3291 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.3291 OF 2008 Pandurang Ramchandra Bagal & Others ...Applicants vs. Smt.Usha Pandurang Bagal & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Prashant Badole for the applicants Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for State Ms Rita Abraham for Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : SEPTEMBER 23,2008 : SEPTEMBER 23,2008 : SEPTEMBER 23,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 1. Rule. The learned Advocate for the first Respondent waives service. Learned A.P.P. waives service for second Respondent. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The prayer in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 is for quashing criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the private complaint filed by the first Respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under section 498-A, 324, 109 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The first Petitioner and the first Respondent married on 18th May 1997. The aforesaid private complaint filed by the first Respondent is pending in the Court of learned Judicial - 2 - Magistrate First Class, Sangola and the next date fixed is 25th September 2008. In this application it is stated that in the meanwhile, there was an amicable settlement between the first Petitioner and the first Respondent and they are happily staying together. An averment to that effect is made in paragraph (VI) of the application. In paragraph (VII) of the application, it is stated that the criminal case was filed by the first Petitioner as a result of misunderstanding. There is a reply filed by the first Respondent. In the said reply, the first Respondent has reiterated that she has resumed cohabitation with the first Petitioner and she has no grievance against the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the first Respondent states that the first Respondent is personally present in the Court and she has no objection if the complaint is quashed. 4. Both the first Petitioner and the first Respondent have affirmed that there is no subsisting dispute between them and they have resumed cohabitation in the matrimonial home. In view of this development, continuation of the criminal case will cause undue harassment to both the parties and it is not in the interests of the parties to continue the prosecution. Hence, a case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the said Code. 5. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer - 3 - clause (b) which reads thus : "(b) Criminal proceeding i.e. RCC 13/08 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangola, Solapur u/sec. 498(A), 324, 109 r/w 34 I.P.C. may be quashed and set aside." 6. Parties and the concerned court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE