Surekha W/O. Amarnath Patil And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 910 Bom

                                   {1}                 CRI.APPLN.2320 OF 2020


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             19 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2320 OF 2020

 1)       Surekha W/o Amarnath Patil
          Age: 58 years, Occu.: Housewife.
 2)       Amarnath S/o Narayan Patil
          Age: 63 years, Occu.: Retire.
 3)       Purushottam S/o. Amarnath Patil
          Age: 38 years, Occu.: Service,
          All R/o. Flat No.3, Raghukul,
          Sudama, Mukharji Cross Road,
          Dombivali East, Near RBT School,
          Thane.                                       ..Applicants

                                 VERSUS

 1)       The State of Maharashtra

 2)       Pallavi W/o Purushottam Patil
          Age: 34 years, Occu.: Housewife /
          Physiotherapist,
          Flat No.3, Raghukul, Sudama,
          Mukharji Cross Road,
          Dombivali East, Near RBT School,
          Thane.                                       ..Respondents

                                  ...
           Advocate for Applicants : Shri Rupesh A. Jaiswal
              APP for Respondent No.1 : Shri R.B.Bagul
       Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri Sohail Subhedar h/f.
                       Shri Nilesh S. Ghanekar
                                  ...
                                 CORAM :       T.V.NALAWADE &
                                               M.G.SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATE: 14th January, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per: T.V.Nalawade J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of both

the sides, heard the matter for fnal disposal.

{2} CRI.APPLN.2320 OF 2020

2. Present proceeding is fled for quashing of R.C.C. No.524 of

2020, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Aurangabad. The aforesaid case is fled for the ofence

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was given by respondent

No.2, who is the wife of applicant No.3. Applicant Nos.1 and 2

are parents of applicant No.3.

3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for

the applicants and respondent No.2 submitted that the parties

have settled the dispute and respondent No.2 is returned to her

matrimonial house. Settlement to that efect signed by

respondent No.2 is produced on record.

4. As learned counsel for respondent No.2 - informant made

the aforesaid submissions, this Court holds that the relief claimed

in the application needs to be granted to the applicants. In the

result, the application is allowed. Relief is granted in terms of

prayer clause-(B). Rule is made absolute in those terms.

          ( M.G.SEWLIKAR )                        ( T.V.NALAWADE )
               JUDGE                                    JUDGE

 SPT