Nutan D. Sardessai, J.

Heard Shri G. Agni, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri P. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State-respondent no.1.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri P. Faldessai, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the State.

3. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the charge-sheet filed before the Sessions Judge, Mapusa in the Sessions Case No.3/2014 on account of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondents no.2 and 3 who do not wish to pursue the case any further. It was briefly his case that he was married to the deceased Geeta under the personal law applicable to them which was performed with much fanfare in the presence of a large number of family, friends and relatives. He had travelled to Goa for a family holiday on 28th September, 2012 along with his wife, since deceased, and the family members and were scheduled to return to Mumbai 5-6 days later after checking into a hotel at Arpora. On 3.10.2012 he was not in his room between 13.30 hours to 13.45 hours when his wife Geeta committed suicide by hanging herself in the hotel room. He had come to the hotel room and was shocked and shattered to see that his wife had committed suicide by hanging herself and had informed the same to her family members who had thereupon lodged an FIR against him alleging that she had committed suicide by hanging on account of the alleged continuous demands for dowry, deprivation of physical relationship etc. The Anjuna Police Station had accordingly registered an FIR against him and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed against him under Section 173 CrPC for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, and 304B read with Section 34 IPC along-with his other family members. The Sessions Court had discharged two of his family members by the order dated 18.8.2016 while his mother had expired during the pendency of the charge-sheet and he alone was facing the charges.

4. It was his case that in the meantime the complainant who was the mother of the deceased, her family members and the petitioner with his family members had arrived at a mutual and amicable family settlement and resolved their differences and disputes including all the misunderstandings surrounding the suicide by his wife. The alleged offence was arising purely out of the alleged matrimonial and family disputes and was purely of a private character. The respondents no.2 and 3 were no longer desirous of pursuing their complaint dated 4.10.2016 as well as the charge-sheet and did not wish to pursue the case any further. The parties were therefore desirous of having the offences compounded and the charge-sheet quashed and set aside. The offences alleged against him were neither heinous nor serious as would shock the conscience of the society or have a serious impact on the society. The compounding of the offences ought to be granted to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and as further continuation of the proceedings could be an exercise in futility and thereby entitling him to the writ in the manner prayed for. The petition was supported by the affidavits of the mother and the sister of the deceased, both of them reiterating on oath that they were aware of the proceedings filed by the petitioner for quashing of the charge-sheet and that they had come to a family settlement, resolved all their differences and disputes including the misunderstandings surrounding the suicide of the deceased and were therefore no longer desirous of pursuing their complaint as well as charge-sheet against the petitioner.

5. Shri G. Agni, learned Advocate relied on the charge-sheet filed before the Sessions Court, Mapusa and the records to submit at the outs