Sajid Shabbir Sanadi And ANR. v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

22-cri-wp-91-19.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 91 OF 2019 Sajid S. Sanadi and anr.

... Petitioners V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

... Respondents ---------------- Mr. Nikhil N. Pawar for the Petitioner/Appellant. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent - State. ----------------

CORAM

:

B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE :

FEBRUARY 20, 2020.

P.C.

1] On 4th December 2019, this Court has passed the following order :

"1 On complaint made by respondent No. 1 after ofence under section 3633 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioner No. 1. The daughter of complainant is petitioner no. 2 before this court. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 state that they are in love with each other and have also married on 21/10/2018. Marriage registration certifcate issued by Village Development Ofcer, Gram Panchayat Malgaon, Miraj, District Sangli(Photocopy is also produced).

Though respondent No. 2 is served, he has chosen not to appear.

We direct the respondent No. 1 to verify marriage registration certifcate and fact of marriage and make suitable statement by 4/2/2020. List on 4/2/2020. No charge-sheet in the meanwhile."

2] Today, learned APP has produced a report dated 20th February 2020, which is taken on record as "Exhibit-A". It shows that petitioner No.1 and the victim (petitioner No.2) in Dinesh Sherla 1/2

22-cri-wp-91-19.doc the matter have already married and are staying together. They have performed marriage on 21st October 2018. The Gram Panchayat Malegaon has registered the marriage in its own records. This marriage is registered on 29th October 2018.

3] Birth Certifcate issued by the Government of Maharashtra shows that the victim is born on 163th October 2000. Thus, she had attained the age of 18 years on the date of marriage.

4] Victim has approached this Court with accused. Accused is petitioner No.1 and victim is petitioner No.2. She has orally informed the Court that after marriage, she has changed her religion.

5] As the request is joint, in view of verifcation report at Exhibit-A, we make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause "a)".

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Dinesh Sherla 2/2