Allowed

Satpal Singh Rajpal Jaswinderpal Singh Rajpal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC27 Sept 2013APPLN/971/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed Criminal Application No.28/2013 initiated by Simerleen Kaur Sethi against Satpal Singh and Jaswindarpal Singh to the extent of the applicants, relying on their undertaking to compound the report and return properties, subject to a deposit of Rs.10,000.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Criminal Application No.28/2013 to the extent of the applicants, conditional upon deposit of Rs.10,000.

Satpal Singh Rajpal Jaswinderpal Singh Rajpal and Others Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 CR.APL.NOS.971 & 1242 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 971 OF 2013

¶4

SATPAL SINGH RAJPAL JASWINDERPAL SINGH RAJPAL AND

¶5

OTHERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State. Mr.Kishor Sant, Adv., for respondent no.2.

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1242/2013

¶11

AMANDEEP SINGH JARNAIL SINGH BAGGA VS.

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.

¶13

Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State. Mr.Kishor Sant, Adv., for respondent no.2.

¶14

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL AND

¶15

A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ.

¶16

Date:SEPTEMBER 27th, 2013

¶17

...

¶18

P.C.:-

¶19

Heard.

¶20

Perused order of this Court dated 26th March, 2013. Both the learned Counsel submit, that Petition No.A.504/2013 between Satpal Singh Rajpal Vs. Simerleen Kaur Sethi was moved

¶21

2 CR.APL.NOS.971 & 1242 of 2013

¶22

before the Family Court No.2, at Nagpur, and on 19th August, 2013, petition is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 6.12.2012 at Nagpur was dissolved by decree of divorce.

¶23

Mr. Sapkal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has tendered photo-stat copy of memorandum of understanding, which is taken on record. He has, for our perusal, tendered original memorandum of understanding. Same is perused even by Mr.Sant.

¶24

Grievance of Mr. Sant is, the respondent Smt. Simerleen Kaur is not present today and, in her absence, it would be difficult for him to comment.

¶25

Perused the memorandum of understanding, coupled with the Divorce Petition, referred to above, regarding return of the properties or exchange thereof between the litigants and also the recital in the memorandum of understanding dated 15th May, 2013 - particular portion reads as under:

¶26

" AND WHEREAS pursuant to the statement made by the parties before the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Application No.971 of 2013, the Party No.2 has proposed that she does not with to continue with the matrimonial relationship with the Party No.1 and has also proposed that she shall withdraw / compound the said report lodged by her against the Party No.1 and his family members. "

¶27

3 CR.APL.NOS.971 & 1242 of 2013

¶28

In the light of this solemn undertaking by respondent, accepted even by the petitioner, the prosecution, subject of present Criminal Applications being Crime No.28/2013, initiated by respondent no.2 is quashed to the extent of the applicants.

¶29

The applicants to deposit composite amount of Rs.10,000/with the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, at Aurangabad, upto 15th Oct., 2013.

¶30

Both the applications (Nos.971/2013 and 1242/2013 ) allowed in above terms.

¶31

agp/971-13crapl

Satpal Singh Rajpal Jaswinderpal Singh Rajpal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Singh Rajpal Jaswinderpal Singh Rajpal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Vithal Begajirao Vidhate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sunil Devtanath Upadhyay and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Yuvraj Sarjerao Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amandeep Singh Jarnail Singh Bagga Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mukundrao Mahipat Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prakash Vishwanath Ashte and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.