SM 1 prod.1.apl.686.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 686 OF 2011 Mr. Deepak Shivanand Pandey ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ....Respondents ____________ Shri. M. K. Kocharekar i/b. Shri. Parikshit Bhople for the Applicant. Shri. H. Rahman i/b. M/s. Rajeev Sawant & Associates for Respondent No. 2. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 15 TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner prays for quashing the proceeding in C. C. No. 59/PW/2005 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37 th Court at Esplanade for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 498 (A), 506 f of the IPC. 3. The aforesaid criminal proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 381 of 2004 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station at the instance of Respondent No. 2. The Applicant and the Respondent No. 2 were married to each other on 8 th February, 2002. It appears that there was a matrimonial discord between the parties and as such F.I.R. came to be SM 2 prod.1.apl.686.11 registered. 4. The matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The Applicant as well as Respondent No. 2 have obtained the decree by mutual consent in a Divorce Petition No. A-1273 of 2004. The Petitioner as well as the complainant both are personally present in the Court and reiterate the same. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 reiterating the same. 5. The Apex Court in case of B. S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 has held that this Court should encourage matrimonial settlements by quashing criminal proceedings. IN that view of the matter, this is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B. R. GAVAI, J.)