Allowed

Gajanan S/O Uttamrao Dhakne and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2016APPLN/6326/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Aurangabad allowed a criminal application quashing proceedings under IPC sections 420, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34. Court held continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process of law following a settlement and agreed residence between parties.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed; prosecution under IPC Sections 420, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 quashed as abuse of process of law.

Gajanan S/O Uttamrao Dhakne and Anr. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cra6326.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6326 OF 2016

¶6

1) Gajanan s/o Uttamrao Dhakne,
 Age-32 years, Occu:Labour,
 R/o-Kandari (Kd.), Tq-Badnapur,
 Dist-Jalna,

¶7

2) Rukminbai w/o Uttamrao Dhakne,
 Age-28 years, Occu:Household,
 R/o-As Above.
...APPLICANTS
 VERSUS

¶8

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Police Inspector,
 Police Station, Parali (City),
 Tq-Parli (Vaijnath), Dist-Beed,

¶9

2) Sau. Jija w/o Gajanan Dhakne,
 Age-30 years, Occu:Service,
 R/o-Vidya Nagar, Parali (Vaijnath),
 Tq-Parali (Vaijnath), Dist-Beed.
...RESPONDENTS

¶10

...

¶11

 Mr. S.B. Solanke Advocate for Applicants.
 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, Addl. P.P. for Resp. No.1.
 Mr.M.S. Karad Advocate for Resp. No.2.

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 V.K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 13TH DECEMBER 2016

¶15

cra6326.16

¶16

¶17

ORAL ORDER [PER V.K. JADHAV, J.] :

¶18

1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶19

respective parties. Applicant No.1 - husband and
Respondent No.2 - wife are present before this
Court. The terms of settlement are verified.
Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 admit the
contents of the settlement. They admit their
signatures on the terms of settlement and they are
duly identified by their respective counsel.

¶20

2.In terms of the settlement Applicant No.1
- husband and Respondent No.2 - wife decided to
reside together. In view of the same, further
continuation of the prosecution against the
Applicants vide Crime No.46 of 2016 registered
with Police Station, Parali (City), Tq-Parali
(Vaijnath) Dist, Beed for an offence under Section
420, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, would be abuse of process of
law.

¶21

cra6326.16

¶22

¶23

3.Criminal Application is allowed in terms

¶24

of prayer clause (B). The Criminal Application is

¶25

accordingly disposed of.

¶26

[V.K. JADHAV, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶27

asb/DEC16

Gajanan S/O Uttamrao Dhakne and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan S/O Uttamrao Dhakne and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Baburao Shrimant Patil and Others

Bhaiya S/O Sahebrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sudhakar S/O. Pandit Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhukar Ramrao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babasaheb S/O Ginyandevsanap and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vimalbai Balkisan Gikwd and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra