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 WRIT PETITION NO.234 OF 1997. WRIT PETITION NO.234 OF 1997. WRIT PETITION NO.234 OF 1997. Mrs.Ranjana Nishikant Adsul. .. Petitioner. versus Smt.Sonali Arun Mane & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.P.J.Thorat i/b. R.A.Thorat, the Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP, for Respondent No.3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 7TH JULY,2008. : 7TH JULY,2008. : 7TH JULY,2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Code, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings of a criminal case pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai. 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case. The second respondent is the real brother of the petitioner. The marriage between the second respondent and the first respondent was solemnized on 27th December 1974. From the said wed-lock, there were two children born to the first respondent and the second respondent. The F.I.R. was lodged by the first respondent with Oshiwara Police Station on 24th August 1991 against the petitioner, the second respondent and the father of the petitioner (since deceased). In the F.I.R. filed by the first respondent, an allegation was made against the petitioner and others of commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the first respondent filed a matrimonial petition for divorce against the second respondent by invoking section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the pendency of the said petition, there was an amicable settlement between the first and the second respondents. The consent terms filed by the first respondent and the second respondent before the Family Court in the said divorce petition. By mutual consent of the parties, the marriage between the first respondent and the second respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce. 3. Reliance has been placed on the agreement between the parties incorporated in the consent terms. The first respondent gave an undertaking in the said consent terms to withdraw the criminal case against the petitioner, the second respondent and their father. 4. On the basis of the said compromise and the decree passed in the divorce petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing the proceedings of the pending criminal case. On 21st February 1997, this Court issued rule and granted stay of further proceedings of the pending criminal case. 5. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find that a case is made out for quashing the proceedings. The decree of divorce was passed by the Family Court. The first respondent and the second respondent filed consent terms in the said petition for divorce. Clause (4) of the said consent terms, reads thus :- "The petitioner Sonali undertakes to withdraw the criminal case filed by her against the respondent, his father Mr.Narayan Mane, his sister Mrs. Ranjana Adsul, which is pending in Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri bearing C.R.No.453 of 1991. She further undertakes to co-operate the respondent in withdrawing the aforesaid case unconditionally.". 6. There is no reply filed by the first respondent to this petition although the same is pending in this Court for last more than 11 years. After the aforesaid compromise, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, the same will cause unnecessary harassment not only to the petitioner and other accused but also to the first respondent. No purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. Obviously, the prosecution is not going to result in conviction. To avoid harassment to the parties, in the light of the compromise effected between the first and second respondent, a case is made out for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case. 7. Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No orders as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]