{1}
criappln1495.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1495 OF 2017
Bharat Ramchandran
others Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
others Non-applicants
Mr. R.S. Deshmukh with Mr. K.B. Kharosekar, advocates for
applicants.
Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, AGP for non-applicants no. 1 and 2.
Mr. A.D. Ostwal, advocate for non-applicant no. 3.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ.
DATE : 29th April, 2019.
P.C. :
Applicant no. 1 Bharat got married with non-applicant no. 3
Priyanka on 18.01.2015 at Aurangabad.
2. The parties thereafter started residing in New Jersey, U.S.A.
On 20.06.2016, Crime No. 603/2016 punishable under Sectionsection
498A of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the
applicants i.e. husband and inlaws of non-applicant no. 3.
3. After the aforesaid offence was registered, the applicants
were charge-sheeted before the Court of Railway Magistrate,
Aurangabad, whereas the superior Court of New Jersey has passed
a decree of dissolution of marriage of applicant no. 1 and non-
applicant no. 3 on 01.08.2017.
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2019 30/04/2019 04:42:38 :::
{2}
criappln1495.17.odt
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, after the matter was referred for
mediation, an affidavit is filed by non-applicant no. 3 thereby
consenting for quashing of the prosecution initiated against the
applicants. The applicants have agreed to pay an amount of
Rs.17,00,000/- jointly in the name of non-applicant no. 3 and her
father through a cheque which is drawn in the name of father of
non-applicant no. 3 namely Sudhir Hampras.
5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for applicants has handed
over the cheque to learned counsel for non-applicant no. 3.
6. In the aforesaid backdrop, in view of the fact that the parties
to the present petition namely applicants, non-applicant no. 3 and
her father are residing in U.S.A., an affidavit of notary, U.S.A., is
tendered by non-applicant no. 3 consenting for quashing of the
prosecution initiated against the applicants.
7. In view of above, in our opinion, the application needs to be
allowed. Application as such stands allowed in terms of prayer
clauses ‘C’ and ‘F1’.
NITIN W. SAMBRE PRASANNA B. VARALE
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
::: Uploaded on – 29/04/2019 30/04/2019 04:42:38 :::
