Pravin Raghunath Bari v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

{1} crapln2975.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2975 OF 2016 Pravin Raghunath Bari ... Applicant.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & another ... Respondents.

. . .

Mr. S. P. Brahme, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. A. R. Borulkar, APP for Respondents/State. Mr. A. R. Syed, Advocate for Respondent No.2. . . .

CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

DATE : 9th JUNE, 2016.

PER COURT:

1] The applicant is accused in crime No. 74/2016 for offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. The respondent No.2 is original complainant. She is served and is present through her advocate. She has filed her affidavit stating that she would not proceed with the case and has settled the dispute. 2] While exercising our powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we generally expect and want parties who settled the dispute to remain present before the Court. The respondent no.2 is not present before the Court. It is stated that she

{2} crapln2975.16.odt is in advanced stage pregnancy and is unable to come to Aurangabad. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has taken the responsibility of genuineness of the compromise. We therefore allow this application in terms of prayer clause "C". [V. L. ACHLIYA] [A. V. NIRGUDE] JUDGE JUDGE Tandale/-903