1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2757 OF 2010 Ramindar Singh Tejvans Singh Anand & Ors. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Kuldeep S.Patil for Applicants Mrs P.P. Bhosale -APP for the State Mr. Pravin Padave for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 8TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants, the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 vide C.R. No. 125 of 2005 registered with Andheri Police Station on 19.3.2005 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 354, 323, 506-II,509 of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit, in which she has stated that the dispute between the husband and wife has been settled. 2 3. I have asked the Respondent No.2 whether she has no objection for quashing the complaint. She has reiterated the averments made in the affidavit. 4. In view of the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent No.2, who is identified by her advocate, in my view, this is a fit case for quashing the said complaint. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.C. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003, Supreme Court 1386 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court has held that the High Court can quash such proceedings after the settlement of dispute between the parties. 4. Under these circumstances, the application is, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.) 3