RUPESH ATMARAM RAUT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short "the Cr.P.C.), is for quashing of criminal proceedings being Case No. 2982/PW/2012 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Borivali Court, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 r/w. 34 Indian Penal Code. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of applicant No. 1. Respondent No. 2 was married to applicant No. 1 on 20th November, 2009. A couple of years thereafter, serious differences arose between them and both started staying separately from 22nd January, 2012. Respondent No. 2 moved to her parents' house. She filed M.J. Petition No. 2462 of 2012 under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a complaint to the police vide C.R. No. 69 of 2012 for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 r/w. section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, chargesheet came to be filed in the complaint resulting into Criminal Case No. 2982/PW/2012 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Borivali, Mumbai. It appears that thereafter the parties have arrived at mutual settlement and decided to part with each other gracefully. Consent terms dated 8th February, 2013 came to be executed between the parties and have been filed in the Matrimonial Petition pending in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. One of the terms in the consent terms is that the parties shall withdraw allegations and counter allegations made against each other and not interfere with each others life. Respondent No. 2 agreed to withdraw the complaint filed by her against the applicants herein. Respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit-in-reply to the present application reiterating the terms of the consent terms.

(2.) Mr. Shekhawat, the learned counsel for the applicants, and Mr. Paikrao, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submit that in view of the consent terms, there is no point in keeping the criminal proceedings pending between the parties. Now that the parties have decided to refrain themselves from making any allegations against each other, the same is bound to result into an acquittal.

(3.) I have perused the complaint, the petition for divorce filed by respondent No. 2 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai and the consent terms. It is clear from the record that the parties have arrived at mutual settlement and decided to part ways with each other. The dispute in the proceedings is essentially personal dispute between the parties arising out of matrimonial discord. Considering the facts of the case, no public policy is involved therein. It would also be in the interest of the parties that the criminal proceedings are quashed. This would allow the parties to lead their independent lives peacefully. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). There shall be no order as to costs.