Partly allowed

Bhushan S/O. Bharat Marathe and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2018APPLN/1431/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed quashing of FIR partially. Court held proceedings against four accused futile as main complainant had no grievance against them and would not testify. Primary accused's application disposed of as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR against applicants 2 to 5 allowed; relief granted in terms of prayer clause B. Investigation against applicant 1 (Bhushan) allowed to proceed.

Bhushan S/O. Bharat Marathe and Others Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

913 Application 1431 of 2018.odt

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1431 OF 2018

¶5

1] Bhushan S/o Bharat Marathe, Age: 30 Years, Occu: Business,

¶6

2] Bharat S/o Rajdhar Marathe, Age: 60 Years, Occu: Pensioner / Business,

¶7

3] Ranjana W/o Bharat Marathe, Age: 54 Years, Occu: Service, All R/o. Shivsagar Mangal Karyalaya, Deepmala Society, Stadium Chowk, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule.

¶8

4] Kalpana W/o Kishor Chouhan, Age: 52 Years, Occu: Service, R/o. Jadhavwadi, Kishor Mangal Karyalaya, Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad.

¶9

5] Manisha W/o Pravin Ithape, Age: 42 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Near Government Milk Dairy, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. ... APPLICANTS (ORIG. ACCUSED)

¶10

V E R S U S

¶11

1] The State of Maharashtra, Through P.I. of Nandurbar Town Police Station, Nandurbar, Taluka and District Nandurbar.

¶12

¶13

913 Application 1431 of 2018.odt

¶14

2] Smt. Divya Bhushan Marathe, Age: 54 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. C/o: Vilas Baburao Jadhav, Plot No.100, Arihant Nagar, Near Kuran Choufuli, Nandurbar, Taluka and District Nandurbar. ... RESPONDENTS (ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT)

¶15

Mr. R. C. Deshpande, h/f Mr. C. C. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicants. Mrs. V. S. Choudhary, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.

¶16

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE & K. L. WADANE, JJ. DATE : 03^rd July, 2018.

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per T. V. Nalawade, J. )

¶18

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

¶19

2 The proceeding is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of quashing of FIR No.312 of 2017, registered with Nandurbar Town Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506, 323, 324, 406, 498-A and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

3 The crime is registered on the basis of report given by

¶21

¶22

913 Application 1431 of 2018.odt

¶23

Respondent No.2, wife of present Applicant No.1. During the arguments, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that Respondent No.2 has no grievance against Applicant Nos.2 to 5 namely Bharat Marathe, Ranjana Marathe, Kalpana Chouhan and Manisha Ithape. The learned counsel submitted that he has objection to grant relief to Applicant No.1 Bhushan Marathe, husband as main allegations are made against him and the wife wants to prosecute the matter.

¶24

4 The learned APP is heard on those submissions.

¶25

5 The learned counsel for Applicant No.1, on instructions, submits that he wants to withdraw the application of Applicant No.1 Bhushan Marathe. So, the application of Applicant No.1 Bhushan Marathe is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶26

6 This Court has carefully gone through the contents of FIR. The main allegations are against Applicant No.1 Bhushan Marathe. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are parents of Applicant No.1 and Applicant Nos.4 and 5 are sisters of Applicant No.3. Their place of resident is also shown different. As the wife has no grievance against Applicant

¶27

¶28

913 Application 1431 of 2018.odt

¶29

Nos.2 to 5 and she does not intend to give evidence against them, this Court holds that it will be futile exercise if the proceedings are

¶30

allowed to proceed further against them. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

I. The application of Applicant Nos.2 to 5 namely Bharat Marathe, Ranjana Marathe, Kalpana Chouhan and Manisha Ithape is allowed.

¶33

II. Relief is granted to them only in terms of prayer clause (B).

¶34

III. The application of Applicant No.1 Bhushan Marathe

¶35

is disposed of as withdrawn and so the investigation

¶36

can go on and further steps can be taken by the investigating agency.

¶37

IV. Rule made absolute in those terms.

¶38

[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶39

ndm

Bhushan S/O. Bharat Marathe and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan S/O. Bharat Marathe and Others 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

Shriram S/O. Bhausaheb Ghanwat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Remeshwar Narayanrao Dhankikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Malhari S/O. Khandu Bargaje Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pranoti D/O. Hemant Saste Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Sudhakar Chaudhari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hashmi Syed Majid Ali S/O. Syed Akbar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others