Ravi Mallikarjun Bhalekar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

7. WP 6037 of 2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6037 OF 2021 Ravi Mallikarjun Bhalekar

...Petitioner

vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

***** Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar - Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Prashant M. Patil - Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Mrs. M. H. Mhatre - APP for the Respondent No. 1-State. ***** CORAM :

PRASANNA B. VARALE & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE :

08th MARCH, 2022 P. C. :- .

We have heard Mr. Pankaj Deokar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Prashant Patil, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the Respondent-State. 2.

The Petitioner is accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 354A, 354D, 354, 376 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Faujdar Chawadi Police Station Solapur. It was at the instance of Respondent No. 2 registered on 21/05/2021. The Petitioner and the Husband of Respondent No. 2 were working together and Petitioner used to visit the house of Respondent No. 2. There is an allegation that the Petitioner developed intimacy with the Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner after arrest is granted Regular Bail.

3.

During the pendency of the petition, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have mutually settled the dispute. The incriminating material in SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date: 2022.03.17 15:55:39 +0530 Seema 1/2

7. WP 6037 of 2021.doc form of photographs, videos etc. available on social media platform is admitted to be destroyed. Both of them have agreed not to defame each other. Both of them have agreed not to contact each other in any manner. Both of them have agreed not to claim monetary compensation with each other. The Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in this quashing petition.

4.

The Senior members from the family of both of them have intervened and settled their dispute. Consent terms have been entered into and it is filed alongwith petition.

5.

The F.I.R. is the outcome of the incident that alleged to have taken place due to visit of the Petitioner to the house of Respondent No. 2 but now they have settled their dispute and it is in the interest of both parties to put an end to the prosecution. If the prosecution is quashed, it will result into not spoiling their relationship any further. Hence in the interest of justice, the prosecution needs to be quashed and set aside. The bail bond furnished by the Petitioner stands cancelled. Hence following Order :

ORDER

(i) The Petition is allowed.

(ii) The F.I.R. bearing C. R. No. 348 of 2021, registered with Faujdar Police Station, Solapur for the offence punishable under Sections 354A, 354D, 354, 376 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) Seema 2/2