Mukesh Mallikaarjun Korba v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

1 / 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3850 OF 2025 Mukesh Mallikaarjun Korba .... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

.... Respondents .......

• Mr. Abid Mulani a/w Ms. Harshada Parbhane, Advocate for Petitioner.

• Ms. Sangita E. Phad, APP for the State/Respondent. • Mr. Adesh Agarkar i/b. Mr. Ashish Agarkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM

: SARANG V. KOTWAL & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 06th OCTOBER, 2025 P.C. :

1.

This Petition is filed for quashing of the FIR registered vide C.R. No.55/2025 with Koregaon Police Station, Pune, on 10/06/2025, u/s 135, 37(1)(a) of Maharashtra Police Act, u/s 324(4), 351(2), 78(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2.

Heard Mr. Abid Mulani, learned Counsel for the Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date:

2025.10.08 15:08:14 +0530 MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Petitioner, Mr. Adesh Agarkar, learned counsel for the Nesarikar

2 / 4 Respondent No.2 and Ms. Sangita E. Phad, learned APP for the State.

3.

Learned counsel Mr. Adesh Agarkar appears through video conferencing. He identifies the Respondent No.2. He undertakes to file his Vakilpatra on behalf of the Respondent No.2 within a period of one week from today.

4.

The FIR is lodged by the Respondent No.2. She has stated that she got acquainted with the Petitioner about 10 months prior to the incident. They had become good friends. The first part of the FIR refers to some monetary transactions between them. But because of the dispute in the transactions, she wanted to stay away from him. She used to avoid talking with him on phone. Therefore, he was angry. He used to visit her place of work and used to cause trouble. She had blocked his phone number. But he used to call her from different numbers. The incident, which is the subject matter of the FIR, took place on 05/06/2025 at about 11.15 a.m. when she was going to her work. He came near her and expressed his wish to have

3 / 4 conversation with her. She refused. The Petitioner threatened her and showed her some weapon. She went back to her society. After some time she came back and saw that the Petitioner had torn seat of her two wheeler. On these allegations, the FIR is lodged.

5.

Now the matter is settled between the parties. She has filed affidavit of consent for giving no objection for quashing of these proceedings. She has clearly stated in her affidavit that she has no objection for quashing the proceeding. She is present through video conferencing. She is identified by her learned counsel, who also appeared through video conferencing. She stated before the Court that she is giving her no objection for quashing of these proceedings.

6.

Considering that the Respondent No.2 does not wish to proceed with the prosecution and no serious damage was caused, we are inclined to allow this Petition as continuation of this prosecution would not serve any purpose.

4 / 4 7.

Hence, the following order :

O R D E R

(i) The FIR registered vide C.R. No.55/2025 with Koregaon Police Station, Pune, on 10/06/2025 and the further proceedings arising out of the said FIR, are quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Petition is disposed of.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)