Aditya Kolhapure And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
KSG 27-APL-180-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2024 Vickrant Kolhapuray ... Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr
...Respondents
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.181 OF 2024 Aditya Kolhapure & Ors ... Applicants V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr
...Respondents
______________________________________ Mr. Sahil D. Dalvi a/w Mr. Sagar Redkar, Mr. Narendra L., for Applicant(s) in APL/180/2024 and 181/2024.
Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Mr. Anuj Tiwari h/f Mr. Mahesh Gaidhani, for Respondent No.2. _______________________________________ CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND Digitally signed by KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE Date:
2025.09.08 19:35:03 +0530 RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 26th August, 2025.
P.C. :
KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE 1) Husband, Mother-in-law, Sister-in-law and Brother-in-law of Respondent No.2 have filed these Applications, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of CR No.440 of 2023, dated 3rd July, 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant. 1/2
KSG 27-APL-180-2024.doc 2) Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the Respondent No.2 has already filed on record her Affidavits dated 21st February, 2025 in both the Applications. It is stated therein that, the parties have settled their differences and have started residing separately as the Marriage Petition No.1325 of 2022, for divorce between husband and wife has been allowed. In paragraph No.9 thereof, the Respondent No.2 has stated that, she endorsed the contents of the Application filed by the Applicants and the Respondent No.2 has given her consent for quashing of the crime.
2.1) The Respondent No.2 appears through video conference facility and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavits dated 21st February, 2025 and gives her 'No Objection' for quashing of the crime in question.
3) In view of the above, both the Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) respectively.
( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) 2/2