SNEHA NIMIT PODDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned APP for respondent no.1-State.

(2.) We have heard respondent no.2 - the complainant, at whose behest Crime No.157 of 2022 for an offence punishable under Sec. 380 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent no.2, both, state that this crime was result of a larger dispute, which was really a dispute between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, who are married to each other. It is submitted that the prime dispute was matrimonial and private in nature.

(3.) While learned counsel for the petitioners is present, petitioners are not personally present. Respondent no.2, along with his counsel, is present before the court and he is identified by his counsel. Upon enquiry made by us with respondent no.2, he states that he has voluntarily settled his entire dispute with the petitioners and, therefore, he has filed consent affidavit in this court giving his consent for quashing of the FIR. He states that the settlement that he has arrived at with the petitioners is voluntary and he has now no complaint of any criminal nature against both the petitioners.