1 apl.783.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 783 of 2011 WITH Criminal Application No. 406 of 2011 Devendra Jayant Badwe & ors. .....Applicants v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .....Respondents Mr. M.S. Mohite for the applicants. Mr. S.D. Nangaonkar for respondent no.2. Ms. A.T. Jhaveri for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 8th August, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present criminal application, the applicants are praying for quashing and setting aside FIR and criminal proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 74/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 34 of IPC read with 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The applicant no.1 in Cr. Application No. 783/2011 and respondent no.2 were married to each other. The applicant nos. 2 and 3 in the said application are the father and mother of the applicant no.1. The applicant in criminal application no. 406/2011 is maternal aunt of the applicant no.1 in Cr. Application No. 783/2011. It appears that there was a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and as such the aforesaid FIR came to be filed at 2 apl.783.11.sxw the instance of respondent no.2 implicating the applicants. 4. The matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The parties have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. The consent terms duly signed by the parties and respective Counsel have been placed on record and marked X for identification. The respondent no.2-complainant is personally present in the Court reiterates about the settlement between the parties. It can, therefore, be seen that the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute. It can further be seen that the parties have agreed to give an end to the criminal litigations pending between them. 5. The Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that this Court should encourage settlement of matrimonial disputes by exercising extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 498 A of the IPC. 6. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), (c) and (e) in Criminal Application No. 783/2011 and prayer clause (b) in Criminal Application No. 406/2011. (B.R. GAVAI, J)