1 Cr.WP.1208/2010 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1208 OF 2010 Pravin Ashok Mali ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D.P. Adsule, A.P.P for the State CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 12TH JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Warunjikar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. Adsule, the learned A.P.P appears for the State of Maharashtra. 2. This Petition filed jointly by the family of the husband and the family of the wife (including both the spouses) seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1101048/PW/2007 by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C read with Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2 Cr.WP.1208/2010 3. Petitioner No.1 Dr. Pravin A. Mali and Petitioner No.5 Dr. Archana Pravin Mali Nee Dr. Archana Dnyaneshwar Mahajan were married on 14th February 2006. Petitioner No.1 approached the Pachora Police Station and registered C.R.No. 73/2007 on 2nd June 2007 and Regular Criminal Case No.283 of 2007 arising from the said C.R resulted in an acquittal by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pachora on 7th September 2009. 4. It appears that on 6th June 2007 the Petitioner No.5 lodged a complaint with Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station at Kurla and it came to be registered as C.R.No.97/2007, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. On completion of investigation, the Police submitted the charge-sheet and the case has been registered as C.C.No. 1101048/PW/2007 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Kurla (52nd Court). While these proceedings were pending against each other, Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner 5 decided to put an end to the matrimonial disputes amicably and with the intervention of their family members. Both of them are doctors and the father of Petitioner No.5 is also a doctor. The spouses approached the Family Court at Mumbai on or about 12th August 2009 and filed a Petition for divorce by mutual consent. A copy of the Consent Terms filed in the said Petition is annexed to this Petition Memo at Exhibit-D. 3 Cr.WP.1208/2010 Paragraph 5 of the Consent Terms states that Archana shall withdraw FIR No.97/2007 and similar condition was also imposed on Pravin. The learned JMFC at Pachora has already dismissed the complaint filed by the husband and acquitted the wife. The complaint filed by the wife has progressed further by filing a charge-sheet and she cannot withdraw the said case, nor the case is compoundable with the permission of the Court under Section 320(2) of the Cr. P. C. Hence this joint Petition for quashing of the case before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under 482 of Cr.P.C and by relying upon the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 952. 5. The Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.5 are present before us and so also Dr. Dnyaneshwar Mahajan, the father of Petitioner No.5. She has filed a separate affidavit supporting the Petitioner and pointing out that quashing of the pending case initiated by her is necessary so that the consent terms submitted before the Family Court are complied with so as to obtain a decree of divorce by consent. 6. As both the parties have decided to put an end to all the matrimonial disputes and obtain a decree by mutual consent so as to dissolve their marriage and therefore, their efforts are bona fide, we find this to be a fit case to invoke the inherent 4 Cr.WP.1208/2010 powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C so as to secure the ends of justice enabling the parties to part ways and obtain a decree of divorce by consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1951. 7. Hence we allow the Petition and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1101048/PW/2007 presently pending before the 52nd Court at Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)