JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. By the present joint application, applicant nos. 1 and 7, who are respectively husband and wife, have prayed for quashing the prosecution against applicant nos. 1 to 6 i.e. applicant no. 1 and his family members for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. the prosecution initiated upon First Information Report No. 72 of 2009 lodged by applicant no. 7 with Wadi Police Station, Nagpur, i.e. which after investigation by the police, has culminated in Regular Criminal Case No. 2368/2009. 4. The application is founded on the contention that the dispute has been amicably settled in between the parties. The consent terms have been drawn and filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in which the marriage petition is preferred. It is stated that the said marriage petition is disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the consent-terms and in terms of the said consent-terms, the petition for divorce by mutual consent is filed in the said Court. The application further discloses that all other terms and conditions arrived at in between the parties has been substantially complied except getting quashed the present prosecution for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against applicant nos. 1 to 6. 5. In consonance with the matter stated in the application, learned counsel for the applicants urged that the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code being not compoundable had necessitated them to file the present application. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that in view of events occurred and particularly in view of both the applicants having taken decision to reside separately by obtaining divorce by mutual consent and the First Information Report being lodged by applicant no. 7 out of frustration and anger denotes that now no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuing the prosecution initiated against applicant no. 1 and his relatives. Learned counsel for the applicants thus urged for allowing the present application by passing appropriate order. 6. 7 out of frustration and anger denotes that now no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuing the prosecution initiated against applicant no. 1 and his relatives. Learned counsel for the applicants thus urged for allowing the present application by passing appropriate order. 6. After considering the matters stated in the First Information Report and charge-sheet at Annexure-I, there appears substance in the submission of the learned APP appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State that the allegations upon which the prosecution is founded are not of such a nature for not according prayers made in application. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid and considering true import of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of Manoj Sharma vs. State, reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 267 (S.C.) further clarifying the ratio in earlier decision in case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Harayana, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S.C.)], it does appear that allowing the continuance of the criminal proceedings in the Court in spite of the parties having arrived at settlement will be an ordeal amounting to the abuse of the process of law. 8. In the premises aforesaid, the prayers in the application are allowed and FIR bearing No. 72/2009 for offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Wadi Police Station, Nagpur and Regular Criminal Case No. 2368/2009 arising out of the same and pending before the Corporation Court No. 2, Nagpur are hereby quashed. The bail bonds, if any, entered upon by applicant no. 1 to applicant no. 6 stand cancelled and they are set at liberty. 9. Rule made absolute in above terms. Application allowed.