Quashed

Harshada D/O Bhimrao Badade v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Oct 2016WP/872/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No. I-90/2016, holding that there were only general allegations of ill-treatment without specific dates or overt acts attributing the incident to her.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.R. No. I-90/2016 qua the petitioner are quashed, set aside and confined to the petitioner only. The Rule is made absolute.

Harshada D/O Bhimrao Badade Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

872.16WP

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 872 OF 2016

¶7

HARSHADA D/O BHIMRAO BADADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

...

¶9

Advocate for petitioner: Mr. V.R. Dhorde
APP for Respondent/State:Mr.M.M. Nerlikar
Advocate for respondent no.3: Mr.M.S.
Shaikh

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Dated: October 05, 2016

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
By the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, heard finally.

¶13

2.This Petition seeks exception to the
F.I.R.bearingC.R.No.I-90/2016
registered on 24.06.2016 with Kopargoan
City Police Station for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 505,
506 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code qua the petitioner.

¶14

872.16WP

¶15

¶16

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P.
appearing for the Respondent/State and
the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2. We have perused the
pleadings in the Petition and annexures
thereto.

¶17

4.So far role of the present petitioner
isconcerned,therearegeneral
allegations of illtreatment. There are no
specific dates or overt acts attributed
to the petitioner. So far alleged
incident dated 24th June, 2016 is
concerned, the petitioner is no way
concerned with the said alleged incident.
The petitioner got married on 9th May,
2015 and residing at Pune. It is also
contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that even
prior to her marriage, she stayed at Pune
for prosecuting five years law course.

¶18

5.Inthelightofdiscussion
hereinabove, further continuation of
proceedings based upon the F.I.R.
bearing C.R. No.I-90/2016 registered with
Kopargoan City Police Station qua the
petitioner will be abuse of process of

¶19

872.16WP

¶20

¶21

law and hence the same stands quashed and
set aside confined to the petitioner
only.

¶22

6.The Petition stands disposed of
accordingly. The Rule made absolute
accordingly.

¶23

(SANGITRAO S.PATIL, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J)

¶24

sga/

Harshada D/O Bhimrao Badade v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshada D/O Bhimrao Badade 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhikaji S/O Ganpati Chorghade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bapu S/O Santosh Rajput (Patil) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satish S/O Shrirang More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chanda D/O Pralad Ravalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mayur S/O Pramod Kshire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Saber S/O Bashir Qureshi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.