1 340311 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3403 OF 2011 Rajkumar Kanhaiya Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. K.R. Tiwari i/by M/s. K.R. Tiwari & Co. for the Petitioners Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Ramesh Singh for Respondent No. 3 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. The learned A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Ramesh Singh, advocate for respondent No. 3 waive notice. 2 340311 3. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This petition is filed by the petitioners, who have been named as accused in F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 100 of 2011, dated 4th April, 2011 with Samta Nagar Police Station, Kandivali (East), for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in the concerned Court on the basis of the said F.I.R. after completing investigation. 5. Respondent No. 3 is the original complainant. The incident referred to in the criminal complaint filed by respondent No.3 is the outcome of matrimonial disputes between respondent No. 3 and the petitioners, in particular petitioner No. 1. All the matrimonial disputes have since been settled between the parties. They have filed Consent Terms in the proceedings before the Family Court and have taken divorce. As condition precedent for the settlement, it is agreed by respondent No. 3 before the Family Court that she would not precipitate the criminal action against the petitioners; and would agree for quashing 3 340311 of the F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet filed therein. Pursuant to the said understanding, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 6. Respondent No. 3, through counsel, however, submits that the petition is not as per the understanding arrived at between the parties; for, in the petition, baseless insinuations are made against respondent No. 3 and her family members, such as in last sentence in paragraph 4 and first sentence in paragraph 12. 7. In response to this grievance, the counsel for the petitioners, on instructions of petitioner No. 1, who is present in Court, stated that the petitioners unconditionally withdraw all the adverse allegations or comments made by the petitioners against respondent No.3 in the petition, and in particular in paragraphs 4 and 12, referred to above. In view of this submission, the counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that respondent No. 3 will not object to the quashing of the criminal case registered against the petitioners, rather would support the said relief, in view of the understanding arrived at between the parties. The learned A.P.P., on instructions, submits that, since settlement is arrived at between the parties in relation to matrimonial disputes, he would leave it to the Court to pass appropriate orders. 4 340311 8. Considering all aspects of the matter, and, in particular, the arrangement agreed upon between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 as recorded in the Consent Terms filed before the Family Court, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to accede to the joint request of the parties to allow this petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). On acceptance of the request, it will have no impact on public policy as such. On the other hand, it may facilitate two families to resolve their differences and continue with their future career anew. 9. Accordingly, petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), on condition that the petitioners shall pay costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to respondent - State of Maharashtra - to be deposited in State Treasury Account bearing No. 0055 for Police Department within two weeks from today and produce receipt thereof in the Registry within the same time, failing which, the matter be listed under caption ‘direction’ on 6 th January, 2012 . Prayer clauses (a) and (b) read thus:- “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for records, papers and proceedings of F.I.R. in C.R. No. 100 of 2011 registered u/s. 498A, 323 and 34 of I.P.C. dated 04/04/2011 against the Petitioners i.e. (1) RAJKUMAR KANHAIYA SINGH, (2) SMT. MALTI KANHAIYA SINGH, (3) SMT. SHEETAL KANHAIYA SINGH, (4) SMT. VIBHA ARVIND SINGH, from Samta Nagar 5 340311 Police Station, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 and after going through the legality, validity and propriety of the same, be pleased to pass the appropriate order and directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the F.I.R. in C.R. No. 100 of 2011 registered u/s. 498A, 323 and 34 of I.P.C. dated 04/04/2011 against the Petitioners i.e. (1) RAJKUMAR KANHAIYA SINGH, (2) SMT. MALTI KANHAIYA SINGH, (3) SMT. SHEETAL KANHAIYA SINGH, (4) SMT. VIBHA ARVIND SINGH, from Samta Nagar Police Station, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 and set the Petitioners at liberty.” R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.