Ravindra Devsing Patil And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3104 OF 2018 1.

Ravindra Devising Patil occ. Service.

2.

Devising Tanga Patil occ. Nil 3.

Sunita Devising Patil occ. Household All 1 to 3 r/o Shivtej nagar Pimple Saudagar, near Kate Dairy Pune 27.

4.

Archana Chandrasing Patil age 33 years, occ. Household r/o Samrat Nagar, Budhha Vihar Pune.

5.

Kavita Punju Patil age 30 years, occ. Household 6.

Punju Harsing Patil age 35 years, occ. Service Applicants 5 and 6 r/w House No. 1574 Shivani, Taluka Bhadgaon Dist. Jalgaon Presently residing at 3-330/1G/A Choutopal, Naignda District Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 7.

Nayan Bharat Thakre age 28 years, occ. Household 8.

Bharat Raghunath Thakre

- 2 - age 34 years, occ. Business.

Applicant Nos. 7 and 8 r/o At post Kasbe 13/2 Sukane, Tq. Niphad Dist. Nashik Applicants

Versus

1.

State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecutor \ High Court, Aurangabad.

2.

Lalita Ravindra Patil age 25 years, occ. Household r/o Kalyane Hole Tq. Dharangaon 425105 District Jalgaon 425001.

Respondents Mr. Girish Nagori, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for respondent No. 1.

Mr. M.G. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : T.V. Nalawade & M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.

DATE : 31st January, 2020.

JUDGMENT : ( PER T. V. NALAWADE, J.) 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

By consent, heard both sides for fnal disposal. 3.

This proceeding is fled for relief of quashing of

- 3 - proceeding of RCC no. 49/2015 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon, fled under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

During argument, learned counsel for applicants and learned counsel for respondent No. 2-informant submitted that the parties have settled the dispute. It is submitted that they have obtained divorce by mutual consent. The wife has given consent for giving relief and she has consented that she does not want to give evidence against the present applicants.

5.

In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the relief needs to be given to the applicants. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'A'. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE ) Judge Judge dyb