1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1286 OF 2009 Sunil Suresh Mulchandani & Ors. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. S. M. Sabrad for Petitioner. Ms. M. H. Mhatre – APP for State. Mr. P. J. Das for Respondent No. 2. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2164 OF 2009 Baldev Kishanchand Sodhi & Ors. ..Petitioners versus Rajesh S. Patil & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. P. S. Das for Petitioner. Mr. S. M. Sabrad for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S. N. Gawade – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 2 2009 seeks leave to join Mr. Rajesh Sadanand Patil as petititioner No. 5. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. By these petitions, the accused have prayed for quashing of the prosecutions pending against them at the instance of the other side. The dispute between the parties arises out of the marriage of the Petitioner No.1 Sunil Suresh Mulchandani and Respondent No.2 Amruta Sunil Mulchandani in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 2009. 3. Apparently, cross complaints were filed in respect of certain incidents which took place in the course of the marriage. In the cross complaints, it appears that the other relatives including the in-laws were made accused. 4. However, from the consent terms filed which are signed by the parties and their respective Advocates are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification, it appears that the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them and have undertaken to file an appropriate application before the appropriate court for seeking divorce by mutual consent. They have also agreed to make a joint prayer to this court for quashing Regular Criminal Case No. 248 of 2009 before the learned J.M.F.C. Ulhasnagar and S.T.C.C. No. 397 of 2009 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Daund, District Pune. Similarly, the respondents in their respective petitions have 3 filed affidavits agreeing that the petitions for quashing the complaints be allowed. 5. Having regard to the dispute between the parties, which is personal in nature in which the members of the public at large are not concerned and having regard to the law laid down in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab [(2008)4 S.C.C. 582] and Manoj Sharma vs. State & Ors. [2008(4) KLT 417 (SC)], I am of view that it is appropriate to direct that both the petitions be allowed and the prayers for quashing of the complaints mentioned therein be granted. Hence, both the petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as follows: “Writ Petition No. 1286 of 2009 : (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 248 of 2009 pending on the file of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ulhasnagar as well as the order issuing process against the Petitioners; Writ Petition No. 2164 of 2009 : (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the complaint bearing STCC No. 397 of 2009 pending before the Learned J.M.F.C. Daund, District Pune as well as the Order dated 20th May, 2009 passed by the Learned J.M.F.C., Daund, District – Pune below Exhibit -1 in STCC No. 397 of 2009;” 4 6. Order accordingly. No order as to costs. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)