Disposed

Sunnabi W/O. Shakil Pathan @ Sunnabi Raju Shaikh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC6 Nov 2023WP/1713/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal writ petition sought correction of a clerical error in a previous order dated 01.11.2023, specifically the description of the respondent's affidavit regarding marital relations. The court disposed of the motion by ordering the necessary corrections.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 01.11.2023 amended to reflect that respondent did not accept marital relationship with petitioner No. 8.

Sunnabi W/O. Shakil Pathan @ Sunnabi Raju Shaikh and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 W.P. 1713-2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1713 OF 2022

¶4

Sunnabi Shakil Pathan
@ Sunnabi Raju Shaikh
and others

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Ms. Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. N. Morampalle, APP for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. S. S. Patunkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶10

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND
KISHORE C. SANT, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 06th NOVEMBER, 2023.

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

.Motion is moved for speaking to the minutes in respect of the
order dated 01.11.2023.

¶14

2. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, in the order

¶15

01.11.2023 in paragraph No. 4 in line No. 11 it is typed as “Now, the
respondent No. 2 has attained majority and she has filed an affidavit
stating that she do not want to prosecute the petitioners as she has
accepted the marital relationship with petitioner No. 8.” In fact, the
respondent No. 2 has not accepted the marital relationship with the
petitioner No. 8.

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

W.P. 1713-2022.odt

¶18

3. In view of the same, in the order 01.11.2023 in paragraph No. 4 line No. 11 be corrected and replaced as “Now, the respondent No. 2 has attained majority and she has filed an affidavit stating that she does not want to prosecute the petitioners and she has not accepted the marital relationship with petitioner No. 8.”

¶19

4. Necessary corrections be carried out accordingly.

¶20

5. Motion is disposed off.

¶21

( KISHORE C. SANT )( R. G. AVACHAT )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

P.S.B.

¶23

2 of 2

Sunnabi W/O. Shakil Pathan @ Sunnabi Raju Shaikh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunnabi W/O. Shakil Pathan @ Sunnabi Raju Shaikh and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Shrinath Balasaheb Dandge and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sudhakar Bhikajirao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Subhash Shyamrao Pawar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kajal @ Rafiq Shaikh Rashid Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others