Yogesh Babasaheb Solunke And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3602 Bom

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2325 OF 2020

1.    Yogesh S/o Babasaheb Solunke,
      Age : 33, Occu : Service,

2.    Babasaheb s/o Dattatraya Solunke,
      Age : 62, Occu : Pensioner,

3.    Rukhmini W/o Babasaheb Solunke,
      Age : 56, Occu : Household,

      All Plot No. 7, Yogiraj, Shiv Samadhan colony,
      Vitkheda, Paithan Road, Aurangabad,
      Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad.                               .... APPLICANTS

              VERSUS

1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through Police Inspector,
      In Crime No. 539/2018 dated 17.12.2018
      Satara Police Station, Aurangabad,
      Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad.

2.    Shubhada w/o Yogesh Solunke,
      Age : 28, Occu : Advocate,
      R/o Flat No. 11, Nilkantha Plaza,
      Golegaonkar Colony, Railway Station Road,
      Bansilal Nagar, Aurangabad,
      Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad.                               ... RESPONDENTS

Shri. D. A. Mane, Advocate h/f Shri. D. M. Pingale, Advocate for the applicants
Shri. A. V. Deshmukh, APP for the respondent/State
Shri. J. V. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

                                        CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
                                                M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATED : 25-02-2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : T. V. NALAWADE, J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally with the

consent of the parties for final disposal.

2. Present proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of the proceeding

cra2325.20.odt 1 of 2

of R.C.C. No. 914/2019 which is pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Aurangabad.

The case is filed by police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The crime was registered on the basis of report given by

respondent No. 2. Applicant No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2. During

argument learned counsels of applicants and respondent No.2 submitted that

parties have settled the dispute. Reply to the effect of respondent No. 2 is filed

on record. It appears that respondent No. 2 and applicant No. 1 have filed

proceeding for mutual divorce. She has given consent for giving the relief

claimed in the present proceeding. In view of this circumstances this Court

holds that necessary relief be granted. In the result, application is allowed.

Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (B).

4. Rule made absolute in those terms.

[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.]                                   [T. V. NALAWADE , J.]



ssp




cra2325.20.odt                                                                     2 of 2