Allowed

Ramesh Pralhad Barkul and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2012APPLN/808/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal application to quash proceedings in a matrimonial case. With the main accused deceased and the complainant acquiescing to a compromise, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Criminal Appeal and impugned judgment of conviction set aside; applicants acquitted.

Ramesh Pralhad Barkul and Ors. Vs the State of Mah… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

CriApln 808/12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 808 OF 2012

¶6

Ramesh s/o Pralhad Barkul & Ors
V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

Applicants

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Shri A.N. Nagargoje,Advocate for the applicants
Shri G.R. Ingole, APP for respondent No.1/State
Shri D.M. Mane, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶11

CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 20^th April, 2012

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

1.The applicants are accused in Regular Criminal
Case No.276 of 2005, which was pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kallamb, District
Osmanabad. The applicants are convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 r/w Sec. 34 of
I.P.C. This was matrimonial dispute. The complainant is
wife of Ravindra, who was also accused in this case, but
died during pendency of the case. The applicants have
filed appeal before the learned Sessions Judge,
Osmanabad, and during the pendency of the appeal, there
occurred a compromise between original complainant and
the applicants. The complainant and her father are
present before the Court. The applicants are also
present before the Court. They filed compromise pursis,
which is marked asExh.A-1.

¶14

2 CriApln 808/12

¶15

2.On reading the compromise pursis, it becomes
clear that the original complainant is no more interested
in prosecuting the applicants. This was a private dispute
between the parties and since main accused Ravindra is no
more and since the original complainant is not interested
in continuing the case against the applicants, I think it
is proper to quash the proceedings. The application
stands allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2009 stand
allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction
of the applicants stands set aside. The applicants are
acquitted.

¶16

SRM/20/4/12

Ramesh Pralhad Barkul and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Pralhad Barkul and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Chandrakant Bhalerao and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Yogesh Chandrakant Bhalerao and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Manik Marotrao Kukalwar Vs the State of Mah

Dr Mahesh Vithal Shelar Vs Sau Megha Mahesh Shelar and Ors.

Sharangdhar Ramlal Lohar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Eknath Bhikaji Bhale Vs the State of Maharashtra