( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3575 OF 2010 Nandini Dilip Shinde APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS .... Smt. N.S. Bagwe, advocate holding for Mr. V.A. Bagdiya, advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent/State. Mr. D.U. Lokhande, advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 6. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks quashing of the proceedings of criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 1315/2007, pending on file of learned 5th Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Aurangabad for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. 2. The applicant is wife of the respondent No. 2. The respondents No. 3 to 6 are the relatives of her husband. She lodged FIR alleging that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the husband and his relatives on account of her ( 2 ) failure to comply with their unlawful demand for payment of Rs. one (1) lac. The FIR was registered by the police and necessary investigation was carried out. The respondents No 2 to 6 came to be chargesheeted for the offences as indicated above. 3. The learned advocate for the parties make a statement that the applicant is residing with the respondent No. 2 since about ten months. It appears that on 22-01-2010, the spouses filed a joint purshis in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)in the said criminal case (R.C.C. No. 1315/2007) to the effect that the applicant - wife was going to reside with the husband as a result of compromise brought about between them. It appears that she has given birth to a male child and thereafter, the matrimonial discord has ended due to the settlement of the dispute. 4. The respondent No. 2 has filed his affidavit which purports to show that he is properly maintaining the applicant and the disputes have been settled. There is no probability of the criminal case being a fruitful exercise in as much as the applicant is the star witness and is likely to be uncooperative with the prosecution. The prosecution, ( 3 ) therefore, would amount to wastage of judicial time and abuse of the legal process. Considering the legal position as laid in "Jitendra S. Bhadoria and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another" 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 898 as well as "Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs.the State of Maharashtra and another" 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 584, such proceedings need not be continued for the reason that the matrimonial life of the spouses is likely to be spoiled. In this view of the matter, the application is allowed. The criminal proceedings of criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 1315/2007 (State vs. Dilip and others) are hereby quashed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3575-10