[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.989 OF 2008 Vipul D.Mehta and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Mona Vipul Mehta and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr. Vijay D.Patil Advocate for Petitioners Smt.S.R.Kumbhat Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners-original accused, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original complainant and and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The Respondent no.1 who was wife of petitioner no.1 lodged FIR No.3 of 2004 at M.H.B.Colony Police Station, Borivali (W), Mumbai against the petitioners under Sections 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC. The divorce proceedings were pending between the parties before the Family Court and the said divorce proceedings have now been disposed of in [-2-] terms of consent terms filed by the respondent-wife and petitioner no.1 before the Family Court. The learned advocate for the complainant states that the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties and in view of the consent terms filed before the Family Court, it was agreed that the petitioners would file a petition before the High Court for quashing of the FIR No.3 of 2004 and the respondents would support the said application and give consent for quashing of the said FIR. The learned advocate for the complainant states that in view of the amicable settlement, she does not wish to pursue her FIR and the said FIR be quashed. 3. It is submitted that though Section 498-A does not fall in the list under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has the power to quash the case. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and others Vs. the B.S.Joshi and others Vs. the B.S.Joshi and others Vs. the State of Harayana and another, reported in 2003 State of Harayana and another, reported in 2003 State of Harayana and another, reported in 2003 Cri.L.J. 2028 Cri.L.J. 2028 Cri.L.J. 2028. In the said case, it is observed that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court. If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of complaint becomes necessary, Section 320 would [-3-] not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. 4. In view of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties and consent terms filed by both of them before the Family Court, FIR No. 3 of 2004 registered with M.H.B.Colony Police Station, Borivali, Mumbai (W) and the proceedings relating thereto, are quashed. 5. Petition is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]