Allowed

Sachin S/O. Prakash Sapkale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Oct 2018APPLN/5135/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed two Criminal Applications jointly filed by applicants seeking quashing of an F.I.R. and a charge-sheet under matrimonial offences. Relying on the settled dispute and existing mutual consent divorce proceedings, the Court granted prayer clause B relief to remaining applicants and made the rule absolute.

What did the court decide?

Both applications allowed; Relief granted under prayer clause B of Crime App. No. 05135 of 2017 for applicants 04, 05, 06 and under prayer clause B of Crime App. No. 02727 of 2018.

Sachin S/O. Prakash Sapkale and Others Vs the State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) Cri. Appln. No. 05135 of 2017

¶2

with Cri. Appln. No. 02727 of 2018

¶3

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

¶4

Criminal Application No. 05135 of 2017

¶5

District : Aurangabad

¶6

`1.`	`Sachin s/o. Prakash Sapkale,`
	`Age 29 years,`
	`Occupation Service,`
	`R/o. N-9, CIDCO, R-27/30,`	`.. Application`
	`Pratapgarh Nagar,`	`dismissed as`
	`Mhada Colony, Aurangabad.`	`withdrawn as` `against`
`2.`	`Mayur s/o. Prakash Sapkale,`	`applicants`
	`Age 25 years,`	`no.01, 02 &`
	`Occupation Education,`	`03, as per`
	`R/o. N-9, CIDCO, R-27/30,`	`Court's order`
	`Pratapgarh Nagar,`	`passed on`
	`Mhada Colony, Aurangabad.`	`14.11.2017`
`3.`	`Shalini w/o. Prakash Sapkale,` `Age 51 years,`
	`Occupation Household,`
	`R/o. N-9, CIDCO, R-27/30,`
	`Pratapgarh Nagar,` `Mhada Colony, Aurangabad.`
`4.`	`Shubhangi w/o. Pramod More,`
	`Age 35 years,`
	`Occupation Household,`
	`R/o. Wing 'E', Room No.204,` `Shivdarshan Complex,`
	`Near Shashvat Park,`
	`Badlapur (West),`
	`Dist. Thane`
`5.`	`Santosh s/o. Pandurang Katkar,` `Age 44 years,`
	`Occupation Service,`
	`R/o. Room No.7,`
	`New Vaibhav Apartment,`
	`Durga Mata Mandir Road,`
	`Kolse Wadi, Kalyan (East),`
	`District Thane.`

¶7

(Judgment) (2) Cri. Appln. No. 05135 of 2017 with Cri. Appln. No. 02727 of 2018

¶8

6. Pramod s/o. Prabhakar More, Age 39 years, Occupation Service, R/o. Wing 'E', Room No.204, .. Applicants. Shivdarshan Complex, Near Shashvat Park, Badlapur (West), Dist. Thane. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through CIDCO N-7 Police Station, Aurangabad. 2. Ashwini w/o. Sachin Sapkale, .. Respondents. Age 23 years, Occupation Household, R/o. Datta Nagar, Jambhulwadi, Sanas Chaal, Ambegaon (Bk.), Pune - 411 046. ........... Mr. Rahul G. Joshi, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.01. Mr. Deshbhushan Madkar, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶9

...........

¶10

With

¶11

Criminal Application No. 02727 of 2018

¶12

District : Aurangabad

¶13

`1. Sachin s/o. Prakash Sapkale,`
`Age 30 years,`
`Occupation Service,`
	`... Contd.`

¶14

(Judgment) (3) Cri. Appln. No. 05135 of 2017

¶15

with Cri. Appln. No. 02727 of 2018

¶16

	`R/o. N-9, CIDCO, R-27/30,` `Pratapgarh Nagar, Mhada Colony,` `Aurangabad.`
`2.`	`Mayur s/o. Prakash Sapkale,` `Age 26 years,` `Occupation Education,` `R/o. N-9, CIDCO, R-27/30,` `Pratapgarh Nagar,` `Mhada Colony, Aurangabad.`
`3.`	`Shalini w/o. Prakash Sapkale,` `Age 52 years,` `Occupation Household,`	`.. Applicants.`
	`R/o. N-9, CIDCO, R-27/30,` `Pratapgarh Nagar,` `Mhada Colony, Aurangabad.` `versus`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra,` `Through CIDCO N-7 Police Station,` `Aurangabad.`
`2.`	`Ashwini w/o. Sachin Sapkale,` `Age 24 years,`
	`Occupation Household,`	`.. Respondents.`
	`R/o. Datta Nagar,` `Jambhulwadi, Sanas Chaal,`
	`Ambegaon (Bk.),` `Pune - 411 046.`

¶17

...........

¶18

Mr. Rahul G. Joshi, Advocate, for the applicants.

¶19

Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.01.

¶20

Mr. Deshbhushan Madkar, Advocate, for respondent no.02.

¶21

...........

¶22

(Judgment) (4) Cri. Appln. No. 05135 of 2017 with Cri. Appln. No. 02727 of 2018

¶23

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

¶24

 DATE : 22ND OCTOBER 2018

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Court] :

¶26

01.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, heard finally.

¶27

02.By way of Criminal Application No. 5135 of
2017, the applicants are praying for quashment of
first information report in Crime No. 0438/2017,
registered with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, on
24.06.2017 for offences punishable under Section 498A,
506(1)(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. The application is already disposed of as
withdrawn to the extent of applicant nos.01 to 03 by
order passed on 14.11.2017.

¶28

03.By way of Criminal Application No. 2727 of
2018, the applicants are praying for quashment of
charge-sheet no. 78/2018, filed by CIDCO Police
Station, Aurangabad, in Crime No. 0438/2017, for
offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 and
506(1)(2) of the Indian Penal Code and consequential
proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 1038 of 2018,
pending before 20th Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Aurangabad.

¶29

04.During arguments, learned Advocates for both
sides submitted that the parties have settled the

¶30

(Judgment) (5) Cri. Appln. No. 05135 of 2017 with Cri. Appln. No. 02727 of 2018

¶31

dispute and they have filed divorce proceedings by
mutual consent, which is pending in the Family Court,
Pune. Applicant no.01 and respondent no.02 are
present before the Court. The terms of compromise in
both applications, signed by applicant no.01 -
original accused no.01 and respondent no.02 - first
informant are placed on record. The terms of
compromise are also signed by learned Advocates
appearing for respective parties.

¶32

05.In the light of above, the relief prayed in
the applications need to be granted.

¶33

06.Hence, the following order :-

¶34

(a)Both applications are allowed.

¶35

(b)Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause "B" in
Criminal Application No. 5135 of 2017, to the extent
of applicants no.04, 05 and 06.

¶36

(c)Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause "B" in
Criminal Application No. 2727 of 2018.

¶37

(d)Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶38

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( T.V. Nalawade )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶39

...........

¶40

puranik / CRIAPPLN5135.17etc

Sachin S/O. Prakash Sapkale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin S/O. Prakash Sapkale 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

Madhukar S/O. Raghunath Kendre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikas S/O. Bhiwaji Waghmare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar @ Kailaspati S/O. Ishwar Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdullah S/O. Ziya Ahmed Shah and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Asha W/O. Bhanudas Wadmare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sachin S/O. Prakash Sapkale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.