1 apl.449.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 449 of 2011 Vikas D. Sharma & ors. ....Applicants v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Manoj Kondekar for the applicants. Mr. C.B. Mali for respondents 1 and 2. Mrs. A.T. Jhaveri-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 20th July, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present petition the petitioners are praying for quashing FIR No. 11/2009 registered with Meghwadi police station. 3. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were married on 25th January, 2004. Out of the said wedlock a female child is born on 31st August, 2006. However, it appears that subsequently there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties and as such the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance of respondent no.2 against the present petitioner. The matter has now been amicably settled. The parties have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in MJ Petition No. A-552/2009. As per the consent terms it is agreed that the jewellery which is lying with the respondent police station would be returned to the applicants. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 are 2 apl.449.11.sxw personally present in the Court and reiterate about their settlement. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). (B.R. GAVAI, J)