- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.538 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.538 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.538 OF 2004 Sandeep Madhukar Dhake Sanjay Madhukar Dhake Smt.Lalita Madhukar Smt.Madhavi @ Rajashree S.Shinde ...Applicants vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Shekhar Ingawale for the applicants Mr.D.P.Adsule A.P.P. for State Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar for Respondent No.3 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : SEPTEMBER 1,2008 : SEPTEMBER 1,2008 : SEPTEMBER 1,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By consent of the Advocate for the applicants and the Advocate for the third Respondent, application is taken up for final disposal. A prayer in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 is for quashing the proceeding of the criminal case pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai wherein the petitioners have been charged under sections 498-A, 406, 324, 506 (ii) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant married to the third respondent on 12th February 1998. It appears that there was some matrimonial dispute between the first applicant and the third respondent. 2. The said dispute was taken to the court of law. The third respondent lodged a F.I.R with the second Respondent. The first applicant had filed a petition for divorce before the - 2 - Family Court at Bandra. The first Applicant and the third respondent filed consent terms in the said petition. The consent terms provided that the third respondent herein will co-operate with the first Applicant for withdrawal of the criminal case initiated on the basis of the F.I.R lodged by the third respondent. The consent terms were acted upon and the decree of divorce was passed by the Family Court in accordance with the consent terms. An application was filed for compounding of the offence before the learned magistrate. The same was rejected as one of the offences is not compoundable. 3. The prayer in this application is for quashing the criminal case as well as the application filed by the third respondent in the said criminal case for custody of the certain articles. The prayer for quashing is made on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the first applicant and the third respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that though the third respondent has no objection for quashing the pending criminal case, the third respondent has not agreed to give up her claim for ornaments and other articles for which notice bearing no.30/N/1999 has been taken out by the third respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the third respondent had agreed to - 3 - withdraw the said application and no claim was made by the third respondent in respect of the articles subject matter of the said application. He placed reliance on the deposition of the third respondent recorded before the Family Court. 5. Perusal of the consent terms filed before the Family Court shows that the third respondent agreed to co-operate with the first applicant for withdrawal of the police case. The consent terms do not specifically record any agreement between the parties as regards the dispute pending regarding the return of ornaments and articles. As of today, there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any settlement between the parties as regards the articles. In the circumstances, though a case is made out for quashing the criminal case, the notice/application taken out by the third respondent will have to be considered on merits. It will also be open for the applicants to claim the custody of the articles. 6. Considering the fact that matrimonial dispute between the first applicant and the third Respondent has come to an end and considering the fact that the F.I.R. was the outcome of the matrimonial dispute, this is a fit case for exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. - 4 - 7. Hence, Application is disposed of by passing the following order : i) The case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai bearing No.169/E/1999 is quashed and set aside. ii) Bailbonds, if any, furnished by the Applicant stand cancelled. iii) It will be open for the third respondent to prosecute her application/notice bearing No.30/N/99 which is pending before the learned Magistrate. It will be open for the Applicant to oppose the said proceeding and to claim the custody of the articles subject matter of the said proceeding. Both the parties are free to take out appropriate legal proceedings as regards the articles. All contentions of the parties on merits in that behalf are expressly kept open. iv) The learned Trial Judge will proceed to decide the pending proceeding regarding custody of the articles as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order. - 5 - v) It is obvious that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the first Applicant and the third Respondent before the Family Court, the said court will permit the third Respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, if not withdrawn till today. vi) Rule is made absolute in above terms. vii)Parties and the concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE