Kushal Daivavan Bangar v. The State Of Maharashta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025 Kushal Daivavan Bangar ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) No.25307 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2025 Kushal Daivavan Bangar ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF
Kushal Daivavan Bangar ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. S. G. Deshmukh a/w Khushal Shekhawat i/b Raj Legal, for the Applicant.
Mr. Ashwin Hawelikar, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP, for the Respondent No.1 -State.
CORAM:
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED :
12th DECEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.
At the outset, Mr. Hawelikar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 states that the Applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands. He pointed out an email dated 06th January 2025 sent to the owner of the premises where both
Applicant and the Respondent No.2 were staying on leave and license basis. It is the submission of Mr. Hawelikar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 that the said fact is very relevant and not disclosed in the Criminal Revision Application No.466 of 2025.
2.
In view of the said contention raised by Mr. Hawelikar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, on instructions of the Applicant who is personally present in Court, seeks withdrawal of the Criminal Revision Application. 3.
Accordingly, Criminal Revision Application is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such.
4.
In view of the withdrawal of the Criminal Revision Application nothing survives in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed of.
5.
At this stage, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, on instructions of the Applicant who is personally
present in the Court, states that the Applicant will comply with the impugned order within a period of one month. The said statement made by the Applicant is accepted as undertaking given to this Court.
6.
Accordingly, Distress Warrant issued be not executed for a period of one month.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]