rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6596 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6596 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6596 OF 2005 Mr.Alinta Yohanan Daniel & Ors. ..Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Ms.Shrikala Nair for Applicants. Miss.T.Parakkaden for Respondent No.2. Mrs. M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P.-State. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . By the present application the, Applicants are seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.117/P/05 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s 32nd Court, at Bandra, Mumbai. In the said case, the Applicants are being prosecuted for commission of an offence punishable under section 498A, 406 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The Applicant No.3 is the husband of Respondent No.2. The marriage of Applicant No.3 with Respondent No.2 was performed on 4th March, 2000. The husband and 2 wife are staying separate from each other since 1st of May, 2001. No issue is born out of the marital wedlock. During the pendency of the criminal case, the Applicant No.3 filed a petition for divorce. The said petition filed by Applicant No.3 came to be converted into a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent under section 10 A of the Divorce Act, 1869. The Applicant No.3 and the Respondent No.2 filed consent terms before the Family Court. The Family Court allowed the divorce petition and passed a decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Thus, the divorce petition has been disposed of in view of the consent terms. 3. The Respondent No.2 agreed to receive a sum of Rs.18.5 lacs as a lumpsum alimony towards full and final settlement of her claim for maintenance. The said amount has been deposited by the Applicant No.3 in the Family Court at Bandra, but the Respondent No.2 has not been able to withdraw the said amount, as the consent terms stipulates that the Respondent wife would be entitled to withdraw the lumpsum maintenance amount only after withdrawal of the criminal case, which is referred to hereinabove filed under section 498A etc. The Respondent No.2 has also filed an affidavit urging for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings, in the absence of which the Respondent will not be in a 3 position to withdraw the amount of permanent alimony deposited in Family Court, Bandra. I am also informed that after obtaining divorce from the Applicant No.3, the Respondent No.2 has remarried and has settled in life with the new partner. The Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are father and mother of the Applicant No.3, whereas the Applicant No.4 is his married sister. In the above referred facts, and in the light of the consent terms filed before the Family Court, Bandra , it is crystal clear that unless and until the criminal proceeding are quashed and set aside, the Respondent No.2 will not be entitled to withdraw the amount of lumpsum alimony deposited in the Family Court, Bandra in the sum of Rs. 18.5 lacs. Quashing of the proceedings, thus is in the interest of the Respondent No.2, as well. The counsel for the Respondent No.2 also urged for quashing of the said proceedings. I am also of the view that it would be in the interest of all the parties if the proceedings are quashed. The quashing of the proceedings would be in furtherance of cause of justice. In the result, the criminal application is allowed. The proceeding of C.C.No.117/P/05 (Old No.3277/P/01) pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai are quashed and set aside. The application is disposed of. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.)