SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sudhanshu S/O. Anil Dongre And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 October, 2018

(Judgment) (1) Cri. Appln. No. 06448 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 06812 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 02591 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Criminal Application No. 06448 of 2017

District : Aurangabad

1. Sudhanshu s/o. Anil Dongre,
Age : 30 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Ganpat Ashish,
Laxminagar, Phaltan,
Taluka Phaltan,
District Satara.

2. Anil s/o. Prabhakar Dongre, .. Applicants
Age : 61 years, (Original
Occupation : Agriculture, accused
R/o. Ganpat Ashish, nos.01 02)
Laxminagar, Phaltan,
Taluka Phaltan,
District Satara.

versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station, Satara,
Taluka Dist. Aurangabad.

2. Priyanka w/o. Sudhanshu Dongre, .. Respondents
Age : 27 years, (No.02 –
Occupation : Household, Original
R/o. Behind Bajaj Hospital, complainant)
Rajaji Nagar, Aurangabad.

………..

Mr. Shrinivas A. Ambad, Advocate, for the applicants.

Mr. S.J. Salgare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent no.01.

Mr. A.S. Jondhale Mr. A.P. Ghule Patil, Advocates,
for respondent no.02.

::: Uploaded on – 16/10/2018 17/10/2018 00:22:26 :::
(Judgment) (2) Cri. Appln. No. 06448 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 06812 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 02591 of 2018

………..

Criminal Application No. 06812 of 2017

District : Aurangabad

1. Sudhakar s/o. Prabhakar Dongre,
Age : 50 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. 3/181,
Dolfin Co-op. Society,
Abhyday Nagar,
Kalachowki Police Station,
Parel Tank Road,
Mumbai – 400 033.

2. Sou. Prajwala w/o. Sudhakar
Dongre,
Age : 41 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. as above.

3. Ashok s/o. Prabhakar Dongre,
Age : 52 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. 1/11,
Gurukul CHS S.V. Road,
Opp. Sahara Studio,
Siddharth Nagar,
Goregaon West,
Mumbai – 400 014.

4. Sou. Pratima w/o. Ashok
Dongre,
Age : 47 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. as above.

5. Santosh s/o. Shivaji Patne,
Age : 39 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. 179, Brahman Galli,
Kasba Peth, Phaltan,
Taluka Phaltan,
District Satara. … Contd.

::: Uploaded on – 16/10/2018 17/10/2018 00:22:26 :::
(Judgment) (3) Cri. Appln. No. 06448 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 06812 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 02591 of 2018

6. Sou. Sarika w/o. Santosh
Patne, .. Applicants
Age : 34 years, (Original
Occupation : Service, accused
R/o. as above. nos.04 to 09)

versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Satara,
Taluka Dist. Aurangabad.

2. Priyanka w/o. Sudhanshu .. Respondents
Dongre, (No.02 –
Age : 27 years, Original
Occupation : Household, complainant)
R/o. Behind Bajaj Hospital,
Rajaji Nagar, Aurangabad.

………..

Mr. Shrinivas A. Ambad, Advocate, for the applicants.

Mr. S.J. Salgare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent no.01.

Mr. A.S. Jondhale Mr. A.P. Ghule Patil, Advocates,
for respondent no.02.

………..

Criminal Application No. 02591 of 2018

District : Aurangabad

1. Sudhanshu s/o. Anil Dongre,
Age : 29 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Laxminagar, Faltan,
Taluka Faltan, Dist. Satara.

… Contd.

::: Uploaded on – 16/10/2018 17/10/2018 00:22:26 :::
(Judgment) (4) Cri. Appln. No. 06448 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 06812 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 02591 of 2018

2. Anil s/o. Prabhakar Dongre,
Age : 62 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. as above.

3. Sushma w/o. Anil Dongre, .. Applicants
Age : 55 years, (Original
Occupation : Household, accused
R/o. as above. nos.01 to 03)

versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Satara,
Taluka Dist. Aurangabad.

2. Priyanka w/o. Sudhanshu .. Respondents
Dongre, (No.02 –
Age : 27 years, Original
Occupation : Household, complainant)
R/o. Behind Bajaj Hospital,
Rajaji Nagar, Aurangabad.

………..

Mr. Shrinivas A. Ambad, Advocate, for the applicants.

Mr. S.J. Salgare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent no.01.

Mr. A.S. Jondhale Mr. A.P. Ghule Patil, Advocates,
for respondent no.02.

………..

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

DATE : 11TH OCTOBER 2018

::: Uploaded on – 16/10/2018 17/10/2018 00:22:26 :::
(Judgment) (5) Cri. Appln. No. 06448 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 06812 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 02591 of 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Court] :

01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
By consent, heard finally.

02. Criminal Application No. 06812 of 2017
and Criminal Application No. 2591 of 2018 are
filed for relief of quashing Regular Criminal
Case No. 1266 of 2017, pending before Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, registered on
the basis of complaint bearing Crime No.
0129/2017, dated 16.03.2017, with Satara Police
Station, Aurangabad, for offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

03. Criminal Application No. 06448 of 2017 is
filed for relief of quashing FIR bearing Crime
No. 0109/2017, dated 04.03.2017, registered with
Satara Police Station, Aurangabad, for offences
punishable under
Sections 354, 504, 506, read
with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

04. The proceedings before the trial court
are filed against the husband of the first
informant and relatives.

::: Uploaded on – 16/10/2018 17/10/2018 00:22:26 :::

(Judgment) (6) Cri. Appln. No. 06448 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 06812 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 02591 of 2018

05. During arguments, learned Advocate for
the first informant and the learned Advocate for
the husband and relatives submitted that the
parties have settled the dispute. Affidavits of
the first informant are filed on record to show
that the dispute is settled and the first
informant has no intention to give evidence
against the applicants. It is mentioned that
they are taking divorce and they want to put an
end to the dispute.

06. As the first informant has no intention
to give evidence, nothing can be achieved if
charge-sheet is filed in Crime No. 0109/2017
against applicants in Criminal Application No.
6448 of 2017. So also, nothing can be achieved if
the applicants in Criminal Application No. 6812
of 2017 and Criminal Application No. 2591 of 2018
are asked to face the trial in R.C.C. No. 1266 of
2017. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, all the three applications deserve to be
allowed.

07. Hence, the following order :-

::: Uploaded on – 16/10/2018 17/10/2018 00:22:26 :::

(Judgment) (7) Cri. Appln. No. 06448 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 06812 of 2017
with Cri. Appln. No. 02591 of 2018

(a) The applications are allowed.

(b) Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause
“C” in all the three applications.

(c) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( T.V. Nalawade )
JUDGE JUDGE

………..

puranik / CRIAPPLN6448.17etc

::: Uploaded on – 16/10/2018 17/10/2018 00:22:26 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh