SM 1 14.wp.2263.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2263 OF 2011 Hakim Yusuf Khan and others ....Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ....Respondents ____________ Mr. K. H. Holambe Patil for the Petitioners. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. M. S. Dhone for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 10TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners are praying for quashing and setting aside the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 507 of 2007 arising out of the FIR No. T-226 of 2007 punishable under Sections 307, 498A, 406, 355, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 are husband and wife. They were married with each other on 8th December, 2005. Further, it appears that some time after the marriage, there was a dispute between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2. The aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance of respondent no. 2 against the petitioner no. 1 and rest of the accused are the relatives of the petitioner no. 1. SM 2 14.wp.2263.11 4. However, subsequently, the matter has been settled between the parties. The petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 are residing together with their son. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations made in the FIR, the respondent no. 2 was interviewed by the Court in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned APP for the State. The respondent no. 2 reiterated that there is no ill treatment from the petitioner no. 1 or any of his relatives and that they are residing happily together for a period more than last two and half years. The respondent no. 2 has filed affidavit reiterating that the matter has been settled between the parties. 6. 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. 7. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B. R. GAVAI, J.)