SSK/922 1 WP/3025.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3025 OF 2011 Suresh Shrichand Hotwani & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. P. M. Arjunwadkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D. R. More, APP for the State. Mr. M. C. Hegde, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 18th NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C.: At the outset, Mr. Arjunwadkar, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to amend prayer clause (a) of the petition. Leave as sought for, is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By way of the present petition, the petitioners pray for quashing Regular Criminal Case No. 215 of 2007 pending before learned JMFC Court No.1 at Kolhapur initiated by respondent-wife under the provisions of SSK/922 2 WP/3025.11 Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No.1 and respondent no.2 got married on 29th November, 2002, and from the said wedlock, they have one issue by name “Master Piyush”. The marriage did not work out, and therefore, both petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have filed petition for divorce by mutual consent before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kolhapur. Respondent No.2 had filed Misc. Application No.183 of 2007 in the Court of learned Joint JMFC Ulhasnagar seeking maintenance for herself and the minor son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner no.1 had earlier also filed a case bearing M.A.No. 146 of 2008 for custody of the minor child under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 is now amicably settled. They have executed consent terms and a copy of the said consent terms is annexed at Exhibit “E” Page 90. It is worth to mention that the original copy of the consent terms is produced before the learned JMFC before whom the respondent no.2’s complaint under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is pending. The parties had applied for compounding of the offence. However, the said application was rejected, and the said order is also challenged by filing the present petition. 4. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 along with her father is personally present in the Court. Both the petitioner no.1 and respondent SSK/922 3 WP/3025.11 no.2 who is present along with her father state that they have gone through the consent terms and have understood the contents of the said consent terms. Respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing of the criminal case initiated by her by filing complaint under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Cr.P.C.. 5. The arrangement in the consent term provides that both petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have agreed to obtain divorce by mutual consent under the provisions of Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act and they are not having any grievance against each other or against each others parents/relatives. Respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw Misc. Application No.183 of 2007 filed in the Court of learned Joint JMFC Ulhasnagar seeking maintenance for herself and the minor son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Petitioner no.1 has also agreed to withdraw M.A.No.146 of 2008 filed by him for custody of the minor child under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. SSK/922 4 WP/3025.11 7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interest of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 8. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Costs to be paid by the petitioner no.1 by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matter. (RANJIT MORE, J.)