1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1087 OF 2011 Girish Amarnath Mengi and others Applicants versus Ragni Girish Mengi and another Respondents Mr.L.P.Kanal for applicants. Mrs.Maya Upadeshe for respondent no.1. Mr.D.R.More, APP for State. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 16th November 2011 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants pray for quashing the criminal complaint CC No.147/PW/2009 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai filed by respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant no.1 and respondent no.1 married in the year 2006. The marriage could not work and therefore respondent no.1 filed Matrimonial Petition No.A-2077/2008 against applicant no.1 for a decree of divorce under section 13(1))(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was subsequently converted into a petition for divorce by 2 mutual consent under section 13(B) of the said Act. The parties have resolved all their disputes and filed consent terms dated 29th June 2011. By virtue of the said consent terms, the marriage between the applicant no.1 and respondent no.1 stood dissolved. Under clause (6) of the consent terms, the respondent no.1 undertook to withdraw the criminal complaint against the applicant no.1. In the above circumstances, present application is filed for quashing the criminal proceedings. 4. The applicants and respondent no.1 are present in the Court. The first respondent has also filed affidavit dated 10th October 2011. In the said affidavit, clause (3) contains an averment that the parties have settled all their disputes amicably and executed consent terms before the Family Court on 29th June 2011. In clause (4) of the said affidavit it is averred that respondent no.1 has withdrawn all the allegations made against the applicant. She, therefore, on oath stated that she does not want to prosecute the criminal prosecution under section 498-A, 406 r/w S.34 of Indian Penal Code and Case No.147/PW/2009 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Mumbai be quashed and set aside. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madam Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, {(2008)4-SCC-582}, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interest of justice the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery. 3 6. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs.3,000/-. Costs to be paid by the applicant by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on record of the present application. (R.V.MORE, J.)