APL. 1005-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1005 OF 2011 Anil Shankar Shedge ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents *** Mr. Prashant Patil, for the Applicant. Ms. A. T. Jhaveri, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Shrikant Yadav, for Respondent No. 2. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 19, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, the learned APP appearing for the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. The applicant has filed this application for quashing the complaint, which is registered with Rabale Police Station, district Navi Mumbai vide C. R. No. 83 of 2011, for the offences punishable under Section 376, 420, 323, 506 of the I. P. Code. 2. In the complaint it was alleged that the applicant herein was in love with her and wanted to marry with her and on the said APL. 1005-11 - 2 - assurance and promise which was given by the applicant, respondent No. 2 permitted him to have sexual intercourse with her. However, thereafter he refused to marry her and therefore, under these circumstances, respondent No. 2 was compelled to file the complaint. Respondent No. 2 has now filed affidavit in reply in which she has stated that dispute between the parties has been settled and she does not have any grievance against the applicant. 3. The learned APP pointed out that two NCs have been lodged by respondent No. 2 against the applicant and his brother. We had, therefore, directed the applicant’s brother to file an affidavit. Accordingly, an affidavit dated 10th October, 2011 has been filed, in which he has stated that after the NC complaint was registered, said dispute has been resolved and he gave assurance to this Court that he will not give any type of threats to the complainant or her family members in future. The respondent No. 2 who is present in the Court, was interviewed by the learned APP and she told to the learned APP that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, in our view, this is a fit case where the complaint can be quashed while exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the case of - Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 SC 1969], has held that High Court can quash the complaint if the dispute between the parties is a personal one. In the present case, apart from the consent given by respondent No. 2, even if averments made in the complaint are accepted on its face value, it does appear that offence under S. 376 of I.P.C. is not made out. Be APL. 1005-11 - 3 - that as it may, under these circumstances, in view of the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, the application is allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer Clause (a). It is made clear that if any threats are given by the applicant or by his brother to respondent No.2, liberty is given to her to apply for review of this order. [A. M. THIPSAY, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]