1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1012 OF 2009 Nitin Mavjibhai Prajapati-Sondagar & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.U.R.Dubey for the petitioners. Ms R.V.Newton, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Ms Jagruti Nitin Prajapati, respondent no.2 present in person. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 10, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2, who is present in person waives service. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of C.C.No.605/2008 in MCR.I/3 of 2007 filed at the behest of the respondent no.2. 2 3. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 are husband and wife. It appears that there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and on account of the matrimonial dispute, the aforesaid criminal case has been filed at the best of the respondent no.2. 4. It further appears that the matter has been subsequently amicably settled between the parties and Consent Terms have been filed in the Family Court at Bandra in Petition No.A-1864 of 2005 thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties. 5. The respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit reiterating the fact regarding Consent Terms being filed in the Family Court. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 are also personally present in Court. They confirm the fact regarding amicable settlement between them. The petitioner no.1 has handed over all the documents pertaining to academic and professional certificates of the respondent no.2, except L.I.C. policy. He submits that the original LI.C. policy has been lost and that the respondent no.2 could apply for duplicate policy and whatever charges are required to be paid, the petitioner no.1 is willing to bear the same. The respondent no.2 states that on a decree for divorce being passed, she would co-operate with the petitioner no.1 for executing the release deed 3 of the flat. 6. The apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) has held that if matrimonial dispute between the parties are amicably settled, this Court should give an end to the criminal litigation by invoking the inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. I find that this is a fit case where on account of amicable settlement between the parties, an end should be given to the criminal litigation. 7. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). B. R. GAVAI, J.