1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.428/2010 Deepak S.Bade and Ors. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Mr.Chetan Akerkar for the petitioners Mr.R.M.More, APP Mr.G.D.Jadhav for Res.2 CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI, & SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : 15th FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. . This is a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973 (the Code) and under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India . 2] The first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent . Petitioners 2,3,4,5 and 6 are father in law, mother in law, brother in law , sister in law and sister in law of the second respondent 2 respectively. Admittedly the first petitioner was married to the second respondent on 24/5/2005 . The relations between the two soured and the petitioner filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 14/11/2008 being M.J.Petition No.2414/2008 . Admittedly the second respondent lodged F.I.R.no. 156/2009 under sections 498-A, 406,323, 504, 506, r/w 34 of the India Penal Code against the petitioners at Powai Police Station . 3] It is not disputed before us that on 28/10/2009 during the hearing of M.J.Petition no.2414/2008 at Family Court,Bandra , Mumbai, the first petitioner and the second respondent agreed for divorce by mutual consent. Consent terms are duly signed by both petitioner 1 and the second respondent before the marriage counselor . Copies of marriage counselor’s report and consent terms dated 28/10/2009 are annexed to the petition. In this petition the petitioners have averred that due to the settlement the second respondent desires to 3 withdraw all the allegations made against the petitioners and she has decided not to proceed with C.R.No. 156/2009 . It is ,therefore , prayed that F.I.R.No.156/2009 be quashed. 4] Today in the Court the first petitioner and second respondent are present. On a query made by us they have confirmed the above facts. 5] We have carefully perused the counselor’s report and the consent terms . In the consent terms it is stated that C.R.No. 156/2009 will be withdrawn in view of the settlement. The first petitioner and the second respondent have confirmed that they have settled all the disputes and the marriage would be dissolved by mutual consent. They have ,therefore, requested this Court that C.R.No.156/2009 be quashed. 6] In B.S.Joshi and Others Vs.State of Haryana and Another , (2003) 4 Supreme 4 Court Cases ,675 in somewhat similar fact situation the Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that powers under section 482 of the Code have no limits . Exercise of such powers would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but these powers must be exercised with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is further held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code. 7] Since the parties have settled their dispute the pending prosecution has become a lame prosecution. If it is quashed parties will be at peace. That would be in the interest of all and would secure the ends of justice. 8] In view of the settled position of law and in 5 view of the statements made before us by the parties in our opinion this is a fit case where FIR no. 156/2009 dated 8/5/2009 registered at Powai police station should be quashed . Order accordingly. Petition is disposed of. (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J.) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)