1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1543 OF 2010 Sanjay S. Singh & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ........ Mr. Rajendra Sorankar for the Applicants. Mr. K. V. Saste, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Amit Vyapari for Respondent No.2. ........ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 31, 2010. P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 3. This Application has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1246/PW/2008, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 32nd Court, Bandra at Mumbai. 4. The criminal case arose out of the FIR registered at the instance of Respondent No.2. The Applicant No. 1 and 2 the Respondent No.2 are husband and wife. It appears that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and on account of said dispute, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered. 5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute and are residing together. The Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 are present in Court and they reiterate the factum regarding settlement. The Respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit in reply stating the same. 6. The Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi V/s. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 has held that where the parties settled their matrimonial dispute amicably, this Court should encourage genuine settlement by quashing the criminal proceedings and exercise of powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ B.R.GAVAI, J ] 3