Sana Parvez Khan v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2025.08.04 18:03:36 +0530 Trupti 913-wp-3631-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3631 OF 2025 Sana Parvez Khan ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents ...

Mr.A.K.Singh with Mr.Piyush A. Singh and Mr.K.A.Singh for the Petitioner.

Mr.Suresh Upadhyay for Respondent No.6.

Mr.A.A.Naik, APP for the Respondent -State.

Mr.Hanmant Govind Dulkar, Police Inspector, Mankhurd Police Station is present.

...

CORAM

:

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.

DATE :

1st August, 2025 P.C.:- 1.

We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.6 and the learned APP. 2.

On the basis of the instructions and the file tendered to the learned APP, it is submitted that the Petitioner and her husband reside in one of the four flats owned by Respondent No.6, who is the Petitioner's father-in-law. The Petitioner's husband is the son of Respondent No.6 from his first wife. He also has one sister and two step sisters. Respondent No.6 1/2

Trupti 913-wp-3631-2025 entered into a second marriage after the death of his first wife and has two daughters from that marriage.

3.

The learned Advocate for Respondent No.6 submits that he is willing to appear at Mankhurd Police Station, Mumbai, on 6th August, 2025 at 12:00 noon and is willing to record his statement that he has never harassed the Petitioner and does not have any intention to harass her. 4.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner will also appear in the police station on the same date and time to record her statement.

5.

In view of the afore-stated statements, this Writ Petition is disposed off.

6.

In the event the police authorities notice that a cognizable offence is committed, they are at liberty to initiate appropriate action. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) 2/2