Tag: Charge Sheet Or Prosecution

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …… Mrs. Veena J. Kamble, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Ruchita Pawar, Respondent No. 1 in person. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State. CORAM : S. S. Shinde J. DATED : 12th June, 2019 P.C . Respondents No. 1 is present in Court. Learned APP Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar interacted with Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has made request to appoint advocate to represent her. Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to appoint senior advocate from the panel within a period of one week to represent Respondent No. 1. At the request of Respondent No. 1 stand over to 4th July 2019. [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 7: 48-wp-2531-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr.Aniket Anand Pawar ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. ...Respondents …... Mrs.Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr.Ajit M. Savagave for the Respondents. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE J. DATE : 4 JULY 2019 P.C.: The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Hence, remove from board. …... (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Ms. Veena J. Kamble for the Petitioner. CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : 1 Liberty to move before Vacation Court. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 11: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ..Petitioner Vs Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Veena Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Savagave for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15th November 2019. P.C.: 1] At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that, there is an arrears of Rs.1,42,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. 2] Before the petitioner be heard on merits, the petitioner is directed to either deposit the said amount of arrears in the Registry of this Court or to pay to the respondent No.1 directly within a period of one month from today. 3] Stand over to 7th January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Aniket Anand Pawar ....Petitioner V/S Ruchita Aniket Pawar And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave a/w Jyotsna Kamble For Respondent Adv.S.S.Hulke APP for State CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J DATE : 22nd January, 2020 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the Respondent No. , Stand over to 29/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: Bharat D. Pandit by Bharat D. 13:17:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar …. Petitioner. V/s Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar and Ors. ….. Respondents. ---- None for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the State. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JANUARY 29, 2020 P.C.:- Stand over to 30/1/2020 for dismissal. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondents. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 30th January, 2020 P.C.: The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that in compliance with the last order, the petitioner is willing to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- in this Court by tomorrow. The petitioner is present in the Court. Since the statement is made on instructions, the same is accepted as an undertaking. The petitioner is permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.90,000/- as undertaken. The respondent-wife will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited. The learned Magistrate in a proceeding initiated by the respondent-wife under the provisions of D.V. Act ordered maintenance of Rs.4,000/- and additional Rs.4,000/- towards accommodation expenses, which was modified in appeal under Section 23 of the D.V. Act by reducing the amount of accommodation expenses to Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner-husband feeling aggrieved preferred this petition. The contention of the counsel of the petitioner is, the petitioner is a self employed and though he earns very meager income, he is ready and willing to maintain his wife. According to him, the respondent-wife is resident of Mumbai and presently staying with her parents. He would further urge that there is independent source of income, as the respondent is practising profession of beautician. While countering aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife would urge that the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent as the petitioner is in habit of not Dusane 3/4 905 wp 2531.2019.doc attending family duties his routine conduct creates serious doubt that the petitioner has some extra marital affair. According to the respondent, even if the respondent has taken training of beautician, still her earning from such profession is not sufficient to maintain herself. As such, she is forced to stay with her parents. Having appreciated rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is self employed person, as such his average income is around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.16,000/- per month i.e. Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. In the aforesaid background order of award of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is very much justified. As the respondent-wife is staying with her parents and it is not her case that she intend to stay independently or her parents are incurring expenses towards the rent, the order of award of accommodation charges, in my opinion, is not justified. As such, the order of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is confirmed, whereas, the order of award of accommodation charges of Rs.2,000/- per month is quashed and set aside. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner will be liable to pay accommodation charges till this date of the order. In response to the Court query, the petitioner submits that he shall clear entire arrears of maintenance within a period of four weeks from today, which statement is accepted as an undertaking. Let the entire amount be deposited in the Court of Magistrate within four weeks from today, to which the respondent-wife will be entitled to withdraw. The petition is partly allowed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 19: Dusane 1/1 906.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2019 Mr. Aniket Anand Pawar .... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ruchita Aniket Pawar & Ors. .... Respondents Smt. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner. Shri. Ajit M. Savagave for Respondent Shri. N.B. Patil, APP for State. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 5th February, 2020 P.C.: Time to deposit the amount is extended till tomorrow, i.e. 6th February, 2020. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 500 OF 2015 Jyotsana Kiran kale. ..Applicant. Versus Shravani Santosh Ambekar and Another. ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 501 OF 2015 Santosh R. Ambekar & Ors. ..Applicants. Versus Shravani Santosh Ambekar and Another. ..Respondents. Ms. Shivangi J. Rajak for the Applicants. Mr. Mayur D. Sapkale for Respondent No.1. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : June 15, 2015 . P. C. : The Applicants are seeking to quash FIR against them bearing CR No.72 of 2015 registered with Vikroli Police Station at the instance of Respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Applicants are the accused in the said CR, who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the said FIR by consent of the original complainant Respondent No.1 herein. Applicant No.1 in APL No. 501 is the husband of Respondent No.1 and rest of the Applicants are his family members. The Applicant in APL is the sister-in-law of Respondent No. 1. Matrimonial disputes between the parties gave rise to the filing of above FIR. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation into above FIR, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same, present applications are filed for quashing the above FIR, by consent of Respondent No.1 In the present applications filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Respondent No.1 has filed separate affidavits dated 27th May 2015 wherein she has stated that she is not interested in continuing with the said FIR. She has solemnly affirmed that she is withdrawing all the allegations made against the Petitioner in the said FIR and that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings of FIR bearing No. 72 of 2015 registered by her with Vikhroli Police Station against the Applicants. Respondent No.1 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavits on her own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the FIR in question lodged by her against the Applicants for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event of settlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can be quashed, even though the said offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below: "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(5) LJ.Soft 46]. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the FIR in question. In the circumstances, applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 sought directions to the police to return the jewellery recovered or attached by the police during the course of investigation into above FIR. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants in both the applications, after taking instructions from her clients, states that the Applicants have no objection for return of the said jewellery to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall make a proper application to the police for return of jewellery. Upon such application, police will take appropriate decision within a week of its filing. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 5: Digitally signed by Mandira Salgaonkar Date: 2021.03.02 17:16:24 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1001 OF 2021 Srinivasan Ravindran Sarma ] Residing at A/105, Supernal Gardens, ] Dhokali Naka, Kolshet Road, ] Thane (West) – 400 607 ] Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra ] ] 2. Mrs.Neeta Srinivasan Sarma ] Residing at 1st Floor, 'B' Wing, ] 101, Violet Apartment, Near Janta ] Sahakari Bank, Murbad Road ] Syndicate, Kalyan (West)-421301 ] Respondents Ms.Priyanka S. Sangare for the Petitioner. Ms.Sana Hakim for Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 present in Court. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1/State. PSI Manjusha V. Shelar, MFC Police Station present. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 01st MARCH, 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. It is common contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent No.2 that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and to that effect, consent terms are placed on record before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 had tendered across the bar, affidavit of respondent No.2. Same is taken on record. In the said affidavit, details of the settlement are averred. Respondent No.2 is present before the Court. She has been identified by her counsel. She has stated that it is her voluntary act to enter into such settlement and pray for quashing of the impugned FIR and proceedings arising out of the said FIR, in view of the consent terms filed before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and 1 2012 (10) SCC 303 extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. It has also held that inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, respondent No.2 is not going to participate in the said proceedings and chances of the conviction of the petitioner would be bleak and remote and, therefore, further continuation of the proceedings in RCC No.730 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 495, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, would be an exercise in futility and would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court. In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings bearing RCC No.730 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 495, 504 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) M.M.Salgaonkar

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 Radha Venkatesh Shetty … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/by Mr. Sunil Kamble for the petitioner. Smt. A.S. Pai, APP for the respondent State. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & NITIN R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 30, 2020 P.C. : Issue notice to respondent returnable on 10/03/2020. Learned APP waives notice for respondent no.1. RPAD/humdast for respondent no. 2. In the meanwhile, petitioner to remove all office objections. If office objections are not removed, petition stall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the court. (NITIN R. BORKAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 Radha Venkatesh Shetty ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....RESPONDENT MR. SATYAVRAT JOSHI i/by MR. SUNIL SHIVAJI KAMBLE for Petitioner. MR. A. S. Pai, PP for Respondent/State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 12th August, 2021 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2668 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 with INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2669 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 with WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2019 Radha Venkatesh Shetty....Applicant/Petitioner.Versus...Applicant/Petitioner.The State of Maharashtra & Another....Respondents. Mr. Somay Pawar i/b Sunil S. Kamble for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. Date : January 7, 2022. [Video Conferencing Mode] P. C. : Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/ Petitioner submitted that due to certain bonafide reasons, he was unable to remove office objections within the stipulated period and as the office objections were not removed, the petition stood dismissed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that he is desirous of removing all office objections during the course of day. He further submitted that as such the delay occurred in preferring the application for restoration is also for bonafide reasons and the same was not intentional. In view of the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, both the applications are allowed. Delay is condoned. Writ petition is restored to the file. Petition is taken up for hearing. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of subject FIR; the petition is filed on 20th May 2019 and post filing of petition, the matter proceeded further in the trial Court; and in the ultimate decision of trial Court by the judgment and order, the Petitioner has been acquitted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that as such the grievance of Petitioner, as raised in the present writ petition, no more survives. In view of the above fact-situation, petition is disposed of. [Anil S. Kilor, J.] [Prasanna B. Varale, J.]

Order - Status 5: 35APL6222016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 622 OF 2016 Kapil Vilas Gandhi …Applicant Versus Ritesh Khandewal & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, for the Applicant. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.2State. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 20th June 2016 P.C. : Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and learned APP for 2nd Respondent. Issue notice to the 1st Respondent returnable on 4th August 2016. In addition to service through Court, the Advocate for the Applicant is directed to serve private notice along with an authenticated copy of this order. If proper Affidavit of Service is not filed on or before 27th July 2016, the Application shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. By way of adinterim relief, we direct that though 35APL6222016.doc investigation shall continue in the subject F.I.R., ChargeSheet shall not be filed as against the Applicant. [A.A. SAYED, J.] [A.S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 662 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None for the Applicant. Shri. A.S.Patil, APP. for the State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 02nd August, 2016 P.C. None for the applicant. Even on earlier occasion none appeared for the applicant. Dismissed for non prosecution. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 8: Vidya amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION AND CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH AUGUST, 2016. P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Supplementary Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under: Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 44, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53 (Cri.) 28/11/2016 47(Cri) 15/06/2017 48 (O.S.), 60 (Cri.) 16/08/2016 49, 50 (Cri.) 27/09/2016 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 (Cri) 29/11/2016 61 (Cri.) 21/10/2016 62, 63 (O.S.) 21/09/2016 64, 66 (Cri.) 27/09/2016 65 (Civil) 25/08/2016 67 (Cri.) 18/08/2016 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates fixed in the matters. If adinterim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 622 OF 2016 Kapil Vilas Gandhi ....Applicant V/S Ritesh Khandewal And Anr ....Respondent Kuldeep U. Nikam For Applicant Mr. A. K. Saxena a/w Ravi Subash Rattesar Respondent No.1 Dr. F. R. Shaikh APP for state CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATE : 27th September, 2016 P.C. : Place the petition on 28/09/2016 at 12.30 p.m. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 622 OF 2016 Kapil Vilas Gandhi …Applicant Versus Ritesh Khandewal & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, for the Applicant. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.2-State. Mr.A.K.Saxena i/b Mr.Ravi S.Rattesar for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : A.S.OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 28 SEPTEMBER 2016 P.C.: Learned APP has tendered across the bar, the report dated 22 September 2016 submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Lonawala City Police Station. In the report, it is stated that the charge sheet is being filed by the police against the accused Vicky Rajpal. Further, it is stated therein that there was no material found against the Applicant showing his involvement in the crime and therefore, charge sheet will not be filed as against the present Applicant. The statement is accepted. The report is taken on record and marked "R-1" for identification. The report shall be kept in a sealed envelope and copies of the report shall not be furnished to any party without express order of this Court. In view of the aforesaid statement made in the report, the present Application for quashing the First Information Report need not be entertained. Learned Counsel for the first Respondent submits that there is a material against the Applicant. However, it is for the first informant to take appropriate steps in that behalf. Suffice it to say that in view of what is stated in the report, at this stage, the present Application for quashing the First Information Report need not be entertained and the same is accordingly disposed of. In any event, under the orders of the Court if the police are permitted to carry out any further investigation as against the Applicant, it will be open for the Applicant to file a fresh Application seeking a relief which is sought in this Application. Subject to what is observed above, the Application is disposed of. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER --- CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 4th September, 2013 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, the following matters on the daily board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. --- Sr.Nos. Adjourned Date 06,09,10,17,20,36,37,38,40,41,42,44 16/09/2013 12,13,14,15,16,43 17/09/2013 19, 22, 23 08/10/2013 24,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,45 10/10/2013 25 24/09/2013 39 27/04/2013 46,47,48 19/09/2013 49, 50 20/09/2013 If any ad-interim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1939 OF 2013 Ganesh Arjun Ghadage And Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Vivek Salunke Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2013. P. C.: . Heard learned Counsel Mr. Vivek Salunke for the Petitioners and Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for the State. Issue notice to Respondent No.2 returnable on 15 January 2014. (M.L.TAHALIYANI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders None for the Petitioner Mr. D. R. More APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JANUARY 24, 2014 P.C. : None present for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner shall furnish a complete spare to the Office within one week from today. Upon furnishing spare copy, Office to issue fresh notice to the Respondent. Notice returnable 4 weeks. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Rupesh Zade h/f. Mr. Pravin Dubade, advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JUNE 9, 2014 P.C.: 1 Stand over to 23/6/2014. Pendency of this Writ Petition shall not be construed as a stay to the trial in Special Case No. 25/2011 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati. Office to communicate this order to the concerned court. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) ..... Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2013 Ganesh Arjun Ghadage and others .....Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another ....Respondents Mr. Vivek Salunke for Petitioner Mr. Rupesh Zade for Respondent Mr. A. S. Shitole APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2014 PC : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Petitioner herein had filed an application seeking relief that Special Case No. 25 of 2011 be tried along with R.C.C. No. 32 of 2012. The said application was rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that the incident reported in R.C.C. No. 32 of 2012 is not arising out of the same incident and therefore, application seeking clubbing of the cases was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge is not yet framed. However, it appears from the charge-sheet that there are allegations against present petitioners under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and therefore, petitioner would have to be tried by the Special Court. In that case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused in R.C.C. No. 166 of 2011 should also be tried by the Special Court. However, as against them, there are no allegations under the provisions of the Special Act and therefore, they would have to be tried by the Court of Magistrate. In view of this, petition stands disposed of. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2016 Mr.Jaydeep Mane for the Applicant Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for the Respondent No.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA AND P.D.NAIK,JJ. DATE : APRIL 4, 2016 P.C. 1 We direct the Advocate for the applicant to annex typed copy of the document on page 9. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Place the application on 3rd May 2016. The Investigating Officer shall remain present in this Court on the next date along with file. (P.D.NAIK,J) (A.S.OKA,J.)

Order - Status 7: 16-apl-322-2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar & Anr. .. Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Vishal L. Kolekar i/by Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane for the Applicant. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.1 CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA & P.D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 03rd MAY 2016. P.C. Applicants have not complied with the order dated 04th April 2016. Only by way of indulgence that we extend the time granted to the applicant to comply with the said order by a period of three weeks from today. If compliance is not made, the application shall stand dismissed for nonprosecution without further reference to the Court. If the compliance is made, application shall be listed on 11th July 2016. [P.D. NAIK, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 18TH AUGUST 2016 P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 48, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 (Cri) th July 2016 5 34, 35, 42 and 43 (Cri) 16th December 2016 38 (OS) 22nd August 2016 39, 73 and 74 (Civil) 21st December 2016 40 and 67 (Cri) 10th October 2016 41, 47 and 65 (OS) th October 2016 5 44, 45, 46, 49, 50 and 51 (Cri) 19th December 2016 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 (Cri) 20th December 2016 66, 70 (Cri), 71 (OS) and 72 (Cri) 29th August 2016 68 and 69 (Civil) th September 2016 7 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : V.M. KANADE & MS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ DATE : 16th December, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 16/02/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 16/02/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. Nitesh J. Mohite i/by Mr.Jaydeep D Mane For Applicant Dr. F.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for Respdt./State. CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 16th February, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to 22/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr Nitesh J Mohite i/by Jaydeep D Mane For Applicant Dr F.R.Shaikh APP for state CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 22nd March, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant , Stand over to 19/04/2017 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ DATE : 19th April, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 14/06/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent None for the Applicant. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre - APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : None for the Petitioner/Applicant. S.O. to 12/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent None for the Applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar - APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ DATE : 2nd November, 2017 P.C. : None for the Petitioner/Applicant. Stand Over to 30/11/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb B. Havaldar and Another. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr. Nilesh Mohite i/b J. D. Mane for the Petitioner. Mr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the State. Coram : Ranjit More & Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, JJ. Date : November 30, 2017 . P. C. : Learned counsel for the Applicant seeks leave to withdraw the instant application. Leave granted. Application is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as such. [Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Machindra Bodke, advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JANUARY 15, 2014 P.C.: 1 Learned APP waives service for respondent and seeks time. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Notice returnable on 12/2/2014. 2 Pendency of this Petition shall not be construed as stay to the proceedings. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 7: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga .Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr.A.M.Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent No.1 – State Mr.Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2014 P.C. . Mr.Arote states that he has been instructed to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2. The office objection, therefore, does not survive. The matter to be listed under the caption "For Admission" after notice on 04.07.2014. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 10: spb/ 10wp2-14.sxw CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 02 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. Mr. A. M. Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Pasbola with Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. V.B.KondeDeshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI,J. DATE : 02 SEPTEMEBR, 2014 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial is concluded and it is kept for recording of the statement of the Petitioner under section 313 of the Cr. P.C.. 3 The Petitioner had made an application for sending the cheque to the document examiner to determine the hand writing on the cheque. The Petitioner denies of his hand writing on the cheque. He admits his signature on the cheque. The learned Advocate Mr.Pasbola, appearing on behalf of the Borey 1/2 Respondent No.2, has stated that it is not the case of the Respondent No.2 that the cheque was in the hand writing of the Petitioner. The case of the Respondent No.2 is that the cheque bears the signature of the Petitioner and it was given by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2. 4 In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, it is not necessary to discuss the order of the learned Magistrate in detail. The position is made absolutely clear by the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. In view thereof, I pass the following order. 5 The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Adinterim order, if any stands vacated. ….. (JUDGE)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2018 Viraj Anand Ubale Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 15years, through his Legal Guardian/Father, Anand Ubale Residing at 510/5, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, Agast Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. ...Petitioner Vs. 1. Swapna Pradeep Salunkhe Indian inhabitant, Aged – 35 years, residing at 807/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, Agast Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. The State of Maharashtra through the Senior Police Inspector of Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai ...Respondents Ms. Anandini Fernandes i/by Deepal A. Thakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. …........ Mr. Rajesh R. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. State. …........ WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 246 OF 2018 Pradeep Kashinath Salunkhe Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 43 years, residing at 807/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. Mrs. Swapna Pradeep Salunkhe Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 35 years, residing at 807/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. Dipak Prakash Patil Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 33 years, residing at 503/5, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. Suresh Ramchandra Panwalkar Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 48 years, residing at 810/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. ...Petitioners Vs. Viraj Anand Ubale Indian Inhabitant, Minor, Aged – 15years, through his Legal Guardian/Father Anand Ubale Residing at 510/5, (9) & (10) WP 245-18 & 246-18.doc Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, Agast Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Senior Police Inspector of Gamdevi Police Station. Mr. Rajesh R. Shah, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anandini Fernandes i/by Deepal A. Thakkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. …........ Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. State. …........ CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J. AND M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2018. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.) : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally by consent of parties. In Writ Petition No. 245 of 2018 the petitioner, who is 15 years old, through his legal guardian is seeking quashing of C.R.No. 226 of 2016 which is numbered as C.C.No. 256/JW/2017 pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dongari, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 354(A) (1) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In the said case Smt. Swapna Salunkhe, who is the mother of the victim girl, has lodged the said FIR wherein it is stated that the petitioner caught hold of the hand of her daughter in the lift and told her that he loves her. In Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018, the petitioner No.1 is Pradeep Salunkhe who is the father of the victim girl in C.R.No.226 of 2016. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2 Smt. Swapna Salunkhe who is the complainant in C.R.No. 226 of 2016. Petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.4 are the neighbours of Smt. Swapna Salunkhe. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018 are seeking quashing of C.R.No. 225 of 2016 of Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is numbered as SCST Case No.6 of 2017 and it is pending before the Sessions Court, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This FIR has been lodged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 245 of 2018 against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 245 of 2018, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018, learned Counsel for the complainant in both the matters and the learned APP for the State. The accused persons in both the petitions are present before the Court. So also, the complainant in both the matters are present before the Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent/original complainant in both the petitions stated that the cases are cross cases and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. They have stated that with the help of well wishers and common friends both parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and have resolved all the disputes between them and they have stated that they do not wish to pursue their complaints and the complaints may be quashed. Looking to the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and looking to the fact that the complainants in both the cases do not want to pursue the case, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be achieved by continuing with the prosecution in the said case. In this view of the matter, C.R.No. 226 of 2016 and C.R.No. 225 of 2016 and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. The Writ Petitions are disposed of in above terms. Rule is made absolute in above terms. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent None For Applicant Neeta S. Jain, APP for state. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 12th June, 2018 P.C. : None For Applicant. Stand Over to 03/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Bhavesh Maheshchandra Thakur For Applicant H.S.Venegaonkar,APP Mrs.N.S.Jain,APP CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 18th June, 2018 P.C. : At the request of Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar, Stand over to one week i.e. 26/06/2018 on supplementary board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Bhavesh Maheshchandra Thakur For Applicant H.S.Venegaonkar,CBI P.H.Gaikwad,APP CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 29th June, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 02/07/2018 High on board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 701 OF 2017 Mrs. Seema Hariom Sharma … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 596 OF 2018 Mrs. Seema Hariom Sharma … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Bhavesh Thakur for the applicant. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad for the RespondentState. Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar for the RespondentCBI CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 02nd JULY, 2018. P.C. The applicants have preferred these applications for return of the cash amount of Rs.2,79,000/ and Fixed Deposit Receipts seized during the course of investigation. ... Mr. Venegaonkar learned counsel for CBI on instructions submits that case for disproportionate assets against the husband of applicant is not made out during the course of inquiry and therefore CBI has no objection for allowing these applications. It is further submitted that amount of Rs.2,79,000/ has been deposited in the Bank of BaradaCBI account. The cheque to the tune of the said amount will be issued in favour of the applicant instead of cash. In view of aforesaid statements, both these applications are allowed. RespondentCBI is directed to return the amount of Rs.2,79,000/ by cheque to the applicant within a period of four weeks from today. RespondentCBI is also directed to return Fixed Deposit Receipts which are subject matter of the application to the applicant within four weeks from today. Both these applications are disposed of. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. )