Petition seeking withdrawal allowed as the underlying prosecution was quashed by a subsequent order; petition rendered infructuous.
Petition allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP-1242/10
AAB
.. 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1242 OF 2010
Renuka Manohar Jaukani And Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s.
The State of Maharashtra And Ors. ... Respondents.
Mrs Renuka Manohar Jaukani, Petitioner No.1 in person present. Mrs S. V. Sonawane, learned APP for the State. None for the Intervenor.
CORAM : A.M.THIPSAY, J. DATED : 7th May, 2012.
P.C
1 Heard. The Petitioner No.1 is present in person. Mrs Sonawane, APP for the State.
2 The Petitioner No.1 makes an application signed by her and the Petitioner No.2 stating inter alia that pursuant to the Consent Terms filed in Family Court, the prosecution in question has been quashed by this Court by an Order dated 11th April, 2012 passed in W.P. No.976 of 2012. The copy of the said order is annexed to this Application.
3 In these circumstances, the Petitioner No.1 for herself and for and on behalf of Petitioner No.2 seeks permission to withdraw the petition.
4 The petition is, anyway, rendered infructuous. The same is allowed to be withdrawn and stands disposed of as such.
( A.M.Thipsay, J.)
Renuka Manohar Jaukani
The State of Maharashtra
A.M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court