Bombay High Court
Ramchandra S/O. Shankarsing ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 4 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
{1} CRI.APPLN.1480 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
72 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1480 OF 2019
1. Ramchandra S/o. Shankarsing Pardeshi
Age: 35 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o. Police Station Road,
Taloda, Tq.Taloda, Dist.Nandurbar.
2. Jagdishsing S/o. Shankarsing Pardeshi
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. As above.
3. Shankarsing S/o. Amarsing Pardeshi
Age: 69 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o.. As above.
4. Ramilabai W/o. Shankarsing Pardeshi
Age: 63 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. As above.
5. Mahendrasing S/o. Shankarsing Pardeshi
Age: 42 years, Occu.: Service.
6. Savita W/o. Mahendrasing Pardeshi
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Service,
Both R/o. Wagh Nagar, Jalgaon,
Dist.Jalgaon.
7. Poonam W/o. Rajendrasing Solanki
Age: 39 years, Occu.: Housewife,
R/o. Kabilpura Navsari, Gujrat. ..Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through The Inspector,
Muktainagar Police Station,
Muktainagar, Dist.Jalgaon.
2. Ku. Pooja D/o. Shamsing Pardeshi
Age: 24 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Shree Colony, Muktainagar,
Dist.Jalgaon. ..Respondent
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 16:23:42 :::
{2} CRI.APPLN.1480 OF 2019
...
Advocate for Applicants : Shri B.R.Waramaa
APP for Respondent No.1 : Shri A.V.Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri M.K. Goyanka
...
CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE &
M.G.SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE: 4th 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. Present proceeding is fled for relief of quashing and setting
aside FIR No.34 of 2019 (Online FIR No.80 of 2019), registered in
Muktainagar Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the ofence
punishable under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and added Section 376 of the IPC.
3. Today, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the applicants and informant submitted that the parties have
settled the dispute and the informant has no objection to grant
the relief claimed in the application.
4. This Court has carefully gone through the contentions of
the FIR. Report was given by contending that there was a
promise to perform the marriage and some function had taken
{3} CRI.APPLN.1480 OF 2019
place but consequently there was breach of this promise. In view
of nature of dispute and the present contentions of the parties
that they have settled the matter, this Court holds that the relief
claimed in the application needs to be granted. In the result, the
application is allowed. Relief is granted in terms of prayer
clause-'A' and 'AA'. Rule is made absolute in those terms.
( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V.NALAWADE )
JUDGE JUDGE
SPT
