Sarita Santprakash Maurya v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2383 OF 2025 Sarita Santprakash Maurya

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

.................................................................................. Mr. Changdev Shingade i/b. Mr. Shrikant Gadade, for the Petitioner.

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Addl. P.P., for the Respondent-State. ................................................................................... CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 26th JUNE 2025 P.C. :- 1.

This is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the Petitioner-Sarita Maurya, who is a sister of one Raj Maurya. According to her, Raj Maurya had left the house on 11.01.2025. He had called her from some unknown destination that his elder brother Hiralal was after him and therefore, to save himself, he was going away. 2.

Petitioner's Father-Ravindra Kumar approached Bhadrakali Police Station, Nashik City and reported about the Petitioner-Brother Raj, missing. Subsequently, the complaint

was registered as CR No.- I 168 of 2025 under Section 142, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It was registered on 05.05.2025. The Police made efforts to trace Raj. 3.

Today, the learned APP submitted a report of the APIBhadrakali Police Station, Nashik, dated 26.06.2025. The Police also produced Raj Maurya, i.e., the Petitioner's Brother before the Court. He is identified by the Petitioner's Counsel and the Petitioner herself, who is present in the Court. The report mentions that because of the family disputes and particularly, because of the dispute with his elder brother Raj Maurya had left Nashik on his own accord. He went to various places in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Ultimately, he took up a job at Pavapuri Tirth, Jeevmaitri Dham, Tal. District Sirohi, State Rajasthan. He was residing there on his own will. Today, he is produced before the Court. The Petitioner had discussion with Raj. The Petitioner is satisfied that there is no further apprehension.

4.

In this background, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Criminal Writ Petition as it has worked out. The report mentions that the

Police have already filed the "C" Summary before the appropriate Court.

5.

Considering his request and the report filed by the Police, permission is granted. The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of.

[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.] [SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]