Kakasaheb Shamrao Murkute vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 948 Bom

                                                                       45-Criwp-2110-2020.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    45 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2110 OF 2020


Kakasaheb Shamrao Murkute
Age: 40 years, Occu: Agri.
R/o. Kedarkheda, Tq. Bhokardhan,
District: Jalna.                                               ... Applicant

                                    VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra
   (Through Cidco Police Station,
   Aurangabad City, Dist. Aurangbad.

2. Suvarna Ganesh Solanke
   Age: 30 years, Occu: Household,
   R/o. Navnathnagar, N-11, Hudco,
   Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.                            ... Respondents

                                    ...
Mr. Nangare Prashant R., Advocate for Applicant
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1/State
Mr. Umakant U. Wagh, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                    ...
                           CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
                                         M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.


                                      DATE   :   14.01.2021



ORAL JUDGMENT :

.                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both

the sides for final disposal.



2.               Present proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of Crime No.

581 of 2020 registered with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad City,

                                                                                         1/3




     ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 18:50:16 :::
                                                                        45-Criwp-2110-2020.odt


Aurangabad for an offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and Section

506 of the Indian Penal Code.



3.                During arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant and

respondent No.2-prosecutrix submitted that the parties have settled the

dispute and prosecutrix has filed her reply affidavit, which is to the effect

that she has no grievance against the present applicant and she has no

objection to give the relief claimed by the applicant. This Court has carefully

gone through the allegations made in the FIR. In view of the nature of

allegations and the period over which the things were going on, this Court

holds that the relief claimed needs to be granted. However, by making such

serious allegation, the time of police and time of court is also consumed. In

view of the things, which are required to be done in such proceeding, this

Court holds that the applicant needs to deposit Rs.25000/- as cost of the

proceeding. In the result, the following order:

                                          ORDER

(a) The Criminal Application is allowed.

(b) The relief is granted in terms of prayer clause 'B' subject to depositing of the cost of Rs.25000/- by the applicant in the Court within four weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within four weeks, it is to be presumed that the present proceeding is dismissed. If the amount is deposited, it is to be credited in the account of High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

45-Criwp-2110-2020.odt

(c) Rule is made absolute in those terms.

(M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

Sameer