sat 1 wp 2049-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2049 OF 2011 Mr.Dipesh Pareek ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Diwakar R. Singh for the Petitioner. Ms.M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. Mr.Rishi Bhuta for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. AUGUST 10, 2011 P.C. :- 1 This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. prays for quashing of FIR No.78/2011 registered with the Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai, on 2nd March, 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 376 of IPC and mainly on the ground that the petitioner and the complainant (respondent no.2) have settled their differences which arose while they were living together in live-in relationship/domestic relationship. Both of them have spent sometime in modelling/acting and as per the sat 2 wp 2049-2011 statement of the complainant recorded on 2nd March, 2011, they started staying together sometimes from March 2009 onwards at Mumbai and they have stayed as such for more than one year. The complaint read as it is does not make out a case even prima facie for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 2 So far as the articles alleged to be missing from the house of the complainant are concerned, it is stated across the Bar that they have been returned/traced out. Both the petitioner and complainant are present before us and the complainant stated specifically that the complaint filed was on account of annoyance and in the heat of passion. She had also filed complaints under the Domestic Violence Act and those complaints also have been withdrawn by her. In this petition, she has submitted an affidavit stating that she has no grievance/complaint against the petitioner which is required to be investigated. 3 The learned APP, on instructions from the concerned police station, states that the investigation into the FIR could not progress further for some or the sat 3 wp 2049-2011 other reasons and therefore, it could not be concluded so as to file a charge-sheet. 4 We are, therefore, satisfied that it would be for doing justice to both the petitioner and respondent no.2 that the FIR is quashed and set aside. 5 Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)