Allowed

Anil S/O. Jijaji Ubale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2019APPLN/2045/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal application quashing an FIR after mediation resulted in a compromise between the applicants and the accused. Evidence showed that the accused resumed cohabitation in the matrimonial home, and the applicant submitted no objection to quashing the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed; First Information Report quashed; Rule made absolute.

Anil S/O. Jijaji Ubale and Others Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

53-APPLN-2045-18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2045 OF 2018

¶4

Anil Jijaji Ubale

¶5

Age: 36 years, Occu.: Labourer,

¶6

R/o Vitkheda, Vedant Nagar, Satara Area,

¶7

Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

¶8

Radhabai Jijaji Ubale

¶9

Age: 57 years, Occu.: Service,

¶10

R/o At Nanded for service purpose and

¶11

permanently at Vitkheda, Vedant Nagar,

¶12

Satara Area, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

¶13

Sau. Savita Ramesh Gaikwad

¶14

Age: 32 years, Occu.: Household,

¶15

R/o Anand Nagar, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

¶16

Sau Nirmala Vinod Yengade

¶17

Age: 42 years, Occu.: Household,

¶18

R/o Home Guard Colony, Vasmat,

¶19

Tq. Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli.

¶20

Sau. Vidya Vijay Umbare

¶21

Age: 31 years, Occu.: Household,

¶22

R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Vasmat,

¶23

Tq. Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli.

¶24

..APPLICANTS

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

State of Maharashtra

¶27

Sau. Shilpa Anil Ubale

¶28

Age: 30 years, Occu.: Household,

¶29

R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Vasmat,

¶30

Tq. Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli.

¶31

..RESPONDENTS

¶32

Mr. H.V. Tungar, Advocate for applicants Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State Mr. N.B. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Mr. Y.K. Delmade, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶33

1 / 2

¶34

53-APPLN-2045-18.odt

¶35

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ. DATED : 25^th FEBRUARY, 2019

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶37

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶38

By order dated 24^th September, 2018 passed by this Court (Coram : T.V. Nalawade and Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, JJ), parties were sent for mediation to the Mediator, High Court Medication Center. It is submitted that the parties have settled the dispute. Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit. It appears that pursuant to such compromise, Respondent No.2 is residing with Applicant No.1 from 26^th November, 2018 in her matrimonial home. Keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 are residing together happily from 26^th November, 2018. In that view of the matter, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that Respondent No.2 has no objection for quashing the F.I.R.

¶39

In the light of discussion hereinabove, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of payer clause [B]. Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶40

SSD

¶41

2 / 2

Anil S/O. Jijaji Ubale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil S/O. Jijaji Ubale 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailas Shankar Navekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Bhimrao Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Azharuddin Abdul Matin Farooqui and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maya W/O. Kishandas Rijwani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abhijit S/O Machindra Patare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravin S/O. Narsingrao Jethewad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.