← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1299/2023allowed

Uday Suresh Sonawane v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

2023-04-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Gadkari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prakash D. Naik2 pages

DAE 29-WP-1299-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1299 OF 2023 Uday Suresh Sonawane

...Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Ajay L. Bhise a/w Mr.Tejas V. Dhotre Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Omkar Mulekar for Respondent No.2.

P.S.I. Mr. Umesh More attached to Marine Drive Police Station is present. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND PRAKASH D.NAIK, JJ.

by DNYANESHWAR ASHOK ETHAPE Date: 2023.04.15 16:53:53 +0530 DNYANESHWAR ASHOK ETHAPE DATE : 10th APRIL 2023.

P.C.:- 1.

Petitioner-Original Accused in C.R. No. 47 of 2022 (C.C.T.N.S. No.56 of 2022), dated 16th March 2022, registered with Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 354-D, 506, 507 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), has filed present Petition for quashing of C.C. No.883/PW/2022 pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, by consent of Respondent No.2, victim.

2.

Petitioner has filed Additional Affidavit dated 10th April 2023 in support of the Petition.

1/2

DAE 29-WP-1299-2023.doc 3.

Respondent No.2 has filed an Affidavit dated 10th April 2023 duly affirmed before the Assistant Registrar of this Court. In paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 thereof, she has given her 'No Objection' to quash the said proceedings in unequivocal terms.

Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate gave her 'No Objection' for quashing of the said proceedings i.e. C.C. No.883/PW/2022 pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No. 47 of 2022 (C.C.T.N.S. No.56 of 2022), registered with Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai.

4.

In view thereof, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.) 2/2