:1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.316 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders. of Coram, appearance, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.A. Rajeshirke for the Applicant. Mr.V.Z. Kankaria for the Respondent No.2. Mr.G.P.Mulekar, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 3/4/2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant No.1 and respondent No.2-Vaishali were husband and wife and had matrimonial disputes. The wife respondent No.2 filed a complaint against three applicants in Sarkarwada Police Station alleging offences U/s.498A,504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and the same was registered :2: by the said police station under C.R.No.91/2002. After investigation, police filed charge sheet and Regular Criminal Case No.594 of 2002 was registered in the Court of J.M.F.C. Nashik. Pending disposal of the case, the husband and wife decided to settle their disputes and executed a divorce deed dated 20.4.2005 and thereafter, even filed divorce petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent in the civil court being Hindu Marriage Petition No.149 of 2005. Under the divorce deed the applicant No.1 had agreed to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.65,000/- as maintenance to the wife. Both the parties had agreed to withdraw criminal as well as civil cases against each other including the present criminal case and an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Mr. Kankaria Advocate for the respondent No.2 wife states that his client has received the promised amount of Rs.65,000/- and his client is ready :3: to settle the matter. He has no objection if the said criminal complaint is quashed. In this view of the matter, no further purpose will be served by continuing the criminal case in question and thus, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). Petition stands disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)