1 (Crim wp 2899 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2899 OF 2010 Feroze Idu Pathan & Ors. ...Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Ms.Sharmila U.Deshmukh for Applicants Mr.A.S.Shitole -APP for the State Mr.Mandar Patil for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 9TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants, Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State. 2. This application is filed by the Applicants for quashing the criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 376, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered with Mira Road Police Station vide C.R. No. 163 of 2007. 3. The case of Respondent No.2 is that Applicant 2 (Crim wp 2899 of 2010) No.1 and Respondent No.2 were residing together at Mira Road, Dist. Thane. There was some dispute between them and in the fit of rage, it is alleged that, she went to the police station and filed a case under sections 376, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2, thereafter, have got married on 10 th October, 2009 as per the Muslim Law and they have started residing together as husband and wife. It is, therefore, submitted that the said complaint filed by Respondent No.2 may be quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. She has stated that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed. 4. In view of the consent given by Respondent No.2, there is no impediment for quashing the complaint filed by her against the Applicants. Even if the averments made in the complaint are taken at its face value, no case is made out under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code because it was stated in the complaint that Applicant No.1 had made a representation that he will marry her and as a result of the promise Respondent No.2 resided with him. It is now an admitted position that Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 were duly and legally married and the said complaint was filed by 3 (Crim wp 2899 of 2010) Respondent No.2 on account of her apprehension that Petitioner No.1 would not marry her. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this is a fit case for quashing the criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.2. Even otherwise, in view of the ratio of the judgments in the cases of Jagdish Chanana Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC. 1968 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2008 SC 1969, there is no reason why this complaint would not be quashed. 5. Under these circumstances, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)