All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3482 OF 2010 1 Tulsibai Shankar Vaijal & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors....Respondents Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/b Mr.A.L.Patki for the petitioners Mr.Hemang S. Rathattha for the respondent no.2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MAY 3, 2010 P.C.: 1 This petition challenges the order passed on application for review of the order passed in Notice of Motion no.1373 of 2003. The petitioner has preferred an Appeal from Order stamp no.10602 of 2010 for challenging the order passed on the Notice of Motion. These two matters will have to be heard by the same Court. 2 The Registrar (Judicial-I) will take appropriate administrative order in this behalf from the Hon ble the Chief Justice. JUDGE ssp

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3482 OF 2010 WITH C.A.NO.3286 OF 2015 IN W.P.NO.3482 OF 2010 WITH C.A.NO.3287 OF 2015 IN W.P.NO.3482 OF 2010 ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 WITH C.A.(ST.) NO.17024 OF 2010 IN A.O.(ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 WITH C.A.NO.828 OF 2010 IN A.O.(ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 WITH C.A.(ST.) NO.10606 OF 2010 IN A.O.(ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 WITH C.A.(ST.) NO.30556 OF 2010 IN A.O.(ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 Tulsibai Shankar Vaijal and others … Petitioners Vs. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority and another … Respondents Mr. Abhay L. Patki for Petitioners and Appellants in WP and AO respectively. Mr. Jayesh Mestry i/b. Mr. Hemang R. for Respondent-MHADA. Mr. Drupad Patil for Interveners in C.A.No.3287/15 in WP 3482 of 2010 and C.A.(St.) No.30556 of 2010 in A.O.(St.) No.10602 of 2010. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2015 P.C. : Not on Board. At the request of Mr. Patki, taken up in the production board. WRIT PETITION NO.3482 OF 2010 Heard Mr. Patki, learned Counsel for petitioners, Mr. Mestry, learned Counsel for respondent-MHADA. Mr. Patki seeks leave to withdraw this Petition unconditionally as the parties have filed consent terms in Writ Petition (L) No.14050 of 2015. He also seeks leave to delete respondent No.1. Leave is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith On the motion made by Mr. Patki, Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the disposal of the Petition, Civil Application No.3286 of 2015 for impleadment of applicants as respondents No.3 to 7 as also Civil Application No.3287 of 2015 for impleadment of applicants as respondents No.3 and 4 do not survive and the same are disposed of as such. APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.10602 OF 2010 Heard Mr. Patki, learned Counsel for appellants, Mr. Mestry, learned Counsel for respondent-MHADA. Mr. Patki seeks leave to delete respondent No.1. Leave is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. Mr. Patki submitted that by the administrative order dated 03.02.2010, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has tagged this Appeal from Order along with Writ Petition No.3482 of 2010. He seeks permission to withdraw this Appeal from Order unconditionally in view of the parties filing consent terms in Writ Petition (L) No.14050 of 2015. On the motion made by Mr. Patki, Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn and is dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, C.A.(St.) No.17024 of 2010 for impleadment of applicants as respondents No.3 to 7 as also C.A.No.828 oF 2010 for condonation of delay, C.A.(St.) No.10606 OF 2010 for injunction and C.A.(St.) No.30556 of 2010 do not survive and the same are disposed of as such. Order accordingly. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8650 OF 2003 Union of India & Ors. ...... Petitioners. v/s Chandrabhan R. Shinde & Anr. ...... Respondents. Mr. Y.S. Bhate with Mr. N.R. Prajapati i/b Mr. K.B. Rao for the Petitioners. Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy for respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 24th March, 2008. P.C.: By this Petition, the Petitioner - Union of India is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.734 of 2001 whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 is allowed and the order dated 17/09/2001 which was passed by the Petitioner was quashed and set aside and it was held that the applicant/respondent No.1 was entitled to receive pension in view of revision of pension by the Vth Pay Commission. Brief facts in nutshell are as under:- The respondent No.1, initially, was working as Labour Officer in Western Railway with effect from 24/10/1952 to 20/09/1963. Thereafter, he worked as Labour Officer under the Chief Labour Officer and as Assistant Labour Officer from 1963 to 1979 and, thereafter, he joined the International Airport Authority which is a Public Sector Undertaking and came to be absorbed therein with effect from 02/04/1979. Some time in February, 1984 the respondent No.1 was sanctioned pro-rata pension of Rs 297/- per month by the Ministry of Labour with effect from 02/04/1979. Initially, the applicant opted to commute 1/3rd of his pension in February, 1984 i.e. Rs 99/- out of Rs 297 and received an amount of Rs, 14,671.80. On 24/03/1984, he again opted to commute balance 2/3rd of the monthly pension i.e. Rs 198/- and received Rs 29,343.60. Respondent No.1's services in Western Railway, however, were allowed to be counted for the purpose of pension and, consequently, pension was revised to Rs 498/- with effect from 02/04/1979 vide order dated 02/07/1985. Thereafter, in view of the IVth Pay Commission his pension was again revised with effect from 01/01/1986 to Rs 1138/- deducting Rs 297/- which he had commuted in 1984. After the Vth Pay Commission, the respondent No.1's pension was further directed to be revised vide order dated 29/07/1999 and it was revised to Rs 3,443/-. However the respondent No.1's pension was suddenly stopped by the order dated 04/10/2000 and, 2 therefore, he filed Original Application No.861 of 2000. The said Original Application was allowed by order dated 19/03/2001 and a direction was given to the petitioner to issue notice to the respondent No.1 and, thereafter, take a decision. Accordingly a fresh notice was issued to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed his representation and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed against the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner - Union of India submitted that the Tribunal had clearly erred in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the respondent No.1 having commuted his entire pension on 24/03/1984 was not entitled to get the revised pension. He invited our attention to Rule 6 of Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and also Rule 10 of the said Rules. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. It is apparent that what was commuted by the respondent No.1 was pension to the tune of Rs 297/- only and not the entire pension of Rs 498/-. The Tribunal has reproduced the application dated 24/03/1984 and on the basis of this application, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the respondent No.1 never had any intention of commuting the revised pension of Rs 498/- per month. In our view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The 3 Tribunal, after having considered the relevant rules and the facts of the case, has recorded a finding in favour of respondent No.1. It is a well settled position in law that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not entitled to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction even if a wrong finding is given. In the present case, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal has to be confirmed in view of the admitted position that the respondent No.1 had commuted total amount of Rs 297/- out of the revised pension of Rs 498/- per month and, as such, the respondent No.1 was entitled to the revision made by IVth Pay Commission and Vth Pay Commission on the said balance amount and the impugned order passed by the Petitioner - Union of India was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Tribunal. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Saunstha Maryaditt ..Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Surel Shah for the Petitioner CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. :- 1 Heard Shri Surel Shah for the Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable in two weeks. Apart from the Court notice private service through Courier / Email / Registered post A.D. is permitted. Parties are put to notice that the Petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. The Learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. (R.M.Savant, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : JULY 3, 2013 P.C. On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily 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 14 30/07/2013 44,46 22/07/2013 49 TO 52 23/07/2013 54 TO 56 24/07/2013 57, 58 29/07/2013 59, 60 30/07/2013 61 31/07/2013 62 TO 66 07/08/2013 67 TO 76 12/08/2013 77 TO 96 13/08/2013 If in any of the above matters, ad interim 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. If there is any extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. ( K.K. TATED, J )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit ... Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ... Respondents None for the Petitioner and Respondent. CORAM : K.K. TATED *, J. 7th August, 2013.* P.C. : Twice the matter is called out no one appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Writ Petition is dismissed for default. (K.K. TATED, J.) katkam k

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6259 OF 2001 ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ---- CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 15th September 2004 P.C. : Heard Mr.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. None present for any of the Respondents though they have engaged Advocates. No reply has been filed by Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra, although this matter is pending since December 2001 and a specific order was passed on 30th June 2004 asking the 1st Respondent-State of Maharashtra to file a reply. No reply has been filed by either of the Respondents. An interim order has been running in favour of the Petitioner since 26th December 2001. admit the Petition. The interim order passed earlier will continue to operate till the disposal of the Petition. Hearing expedited. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (NISHITA MHATRE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4519 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4544 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4903 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4949 OF 2001 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6259 OF 2001 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court's or Judge's orders. coram, appearances, Court's orders : or directions and Registrar's : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: V.G.PALSHIKAR & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED: 18TH OCTOBER, 2005 P.C. : ... . These petitions have been wrongly tagged together probably because they are filed by the same advocate. Except that similarity there is no other similarity in these petitions. On the request of Mr.Mendadkar, office to separate this petition and list them independently.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6259 OF 2001 Shri Mohanlal Pandhari Nandanwar ..... Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents. ------ Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ------- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 29 th January, 2008. P.C.: On the motion made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Petition is permitted to be withdrawn. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to make representation to Respondent No.3. for protection of his services. In case, such a representation is made, the Government shall consider it in accordance with law. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for Petitioners. Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for Respondent-State No.1. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHIVKUMAR DIGE, JJ. DATE : 21st June 2023. P.C. : Issue notice to Respondent No.2, returnable on 2nd August 2023. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners is directed to supply spare copies of the Petition in the Registry within a period of two weeks from today. Stand over to 2nd August 2023. Till the next date, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (b). [ SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. ] [ A.S. GADKARI, J. ]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharahstra & Anr. … Respondents NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2023.08.07 11:07:36 +0530 Mr.Sarwadnya Kadtane a/w Mr.Yash Naik, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.S. Hulke, APP for Respondent-State. Mr.D.M. Thosar, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI AND SHIVKUMAR DIGE, JJ. DATE : 02nd AUGUST 2023 P.C. : At the request of learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, stand over to 24th August 2023. Ad-interim relief if any, granted earlier, to continue till next date. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 8: Amol Diliprao Nawale Digitally signed by Amol Diliprao Nawale Date: 2023.09.04 17:50:38 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. …Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioners. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State. Mr. D. M. Thosar i/b. Thosar & Associates for the Respondent No.2 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 31 st AUGUST, 2023 P.C.: Counsel for the Petitioners assures that the brother of the Petitioner is party to the D.V. Act proceeding and shall appear before the Magistrate Court at Belapur in D. V. Act Proceeding. Since the statement is made, on instructions, the same is accepted. It appears that earlier there was a settlement between the parties i.e., Respondent-Complainant and her husband. However, the settlement terms have not materialized. As we have heard respective counsel for sometime, we deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter to next week, as a last chance, so as to enable the brother of the Petitioner, who happened to be husband of the Respondent-Complainant to make an offer of one time alimony. Stand over to 7th September, 2023. Ad-interim relief if any, granted earlier, to continue till next date. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane a/w Kanchan Phatak, for the Petitioners. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. D. M. Thosar i/by Thosar & Associates, for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2023 P.C. If copy is not supplied to the counsel for the petitioners of reply within one week with an acknowledgment to be produced on record within said time, the defence of the respondent shall be struck of. Stand over to 5th October, 2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till then, only to the extent of the present petitioners. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date: 2023.09.08 12:27:37 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL BGP. 1 of 1

Order - Status 12: BDP-SPS-TAC BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2023.10.09 12:12:07 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and Anr. ….Petitioners V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents --- Mr. Yash Naik i/b Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. D.M. Thosar i/b Thosar & Associates for Respondent No.2. ---- CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & N. R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 05, 2023 P.C.:- Stand over to 26.10.2023. Interim order to continue till the next date. ( N. R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Order - Status 14: 31-WP-1995-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and another Petitioners WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and another … Petitioners Versus • Mr. Sarwdnya Kadtane alongwith Mr. Akash Kotecha for the Petitioners. Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP for the State. Ms. Rupali Thosar instructed by Thosar and Associates for Respondent No.2. …...... CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 26 OCTOBER 2023 P.C. :- Both the parties assure that they shall be appearing before the Mediator Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP on 31 October 2023 at 2.30 p.m. The statement is accepted. List the Petition on 9 November 2023. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 1

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao and anr. … Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioner. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State. Ms. Rupali Thosar i/b Thosar and Associates for Respondent No. 2. …...... …...... CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 9 NOVEMBER 2023 P.C. :- As the mediation is in progress, stand over to 25 January 2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. …..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya S. Kadtane (through V.C.) for the Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. A.P.I. Mr. Balasaheb Bhimraj Shinde, Rable Police Station present. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 5 th AUGUST 2024. P.C.:- Learned Advocate for the Petitioners on instructions submitted that, the process of mediation has failed and prayed that the Petition may be heard on merits. 1.1) At his request, stand over to 26th August 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till then. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao And Anr. …..Petitioners Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for the Petitioners. Mr. A.I. Satpute, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. None for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 29 th AUGUST, 2024. P.C.:- Despite service, none appears for the Respondent No.2. Stand over to 24th September 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till then. (DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) NILESH SHIVGAN Digitally signed NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.09.02 19:18:32 +0530

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Yash Naik a/w Adv. Sarwadnya Kadtane and Mr. Shakti Kolekar for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.M. Thosar i/b Thosar & Associates for Respondent No.2. P.S.I. Mr. Balaji Pawane, Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai, present. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : th 24 September 2024. P.C. : At the request of learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, stand over to 1st October 2024. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till next date. ( DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) RAJESH VASANT Digitally signed by RAJESH VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2024.09.30 10:24:49 +0530

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.M. Thosar i/b Thosar & Associates for Respondent No.2. PSI Mr. Balaji Pawane, Rabale Police Station. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 3 rd October 2024. P.C. : Stand over to 24 th October 2024. 1.1) To be listed under the caption 'For Admission'. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue till next date. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) RAJESH Digitally signed by RAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2024.10.08 10:48:40 +0530

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2023 Sunil Madhav Bhalerao & Anr. …..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents Mr. Sarwadnya Kadtane, for Petitioners. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. D.M. Thosar, i/b Thosar & Advocates, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 24th OCTOBER 2024. P.C.:- This Writ Petition is filed for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing C.R.No. 9 of 2023 lodged at Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 4th January 2023 under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. is lodged by the Respondent No.2 herein. The Petitioners are the younger brothers of her husband Gopal @ Anil. It is stated in her F.I.R. that she was married with Gopal on 21st April 2017. Her father had given her gold ornaments weighing 2.5 tola and Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash to her husband's father. On further demands he has given 1.5 told of gold. He also gave household articles in the marriage. After the marriage, she started residing with her in-laws at village Ligdal, Taluka Amadpur, Post Telgaon, District Latur. The F.I.R. mentions that her mother-in-law did not allow her to use any article given by her father. Her husband had told her that she had no right to use those articles. She was not allowed to use Air Cooler. It is alleged that her mother-in-law did not give her sufficient food and used to make her to do all household work. It is further mentioned that Gopal's parents and both the Petitioners as well as Gopal himself suggested that the Informant and Gopal should stay at Udgir, Latur. Accordingly, she and Gopal started residing at Udgir, Latur. It is further alleged that Gopal used to ill-treat her and used to beat her. He was addicted to different vices. She became pregnant, but even then her mother-in-law and husband Gopal assaulted her. There is a general statement that because of the harassment of the family members of the husband, she had to undergo cesarean. Even at that time, Gopal did not spend any money. The F.I.R. thereafter mentions different instances particularly in respect of Gopal and his mother. There are only two references of both the Petitioners. At one instance, it is alleged that Gopal and the Petitioner No.2 Vikram had gone to their house at Udgir and had broken the iron gate and abused to her and her mother. She was also beaten up by them and then they had left. The other allegations are that her two children were sick, but then Gopal did not look after them. She called the Petitioner No.1 to inform him about this. At that time, he told her that he had no concern with informant and her children. These are the only two allegations against both the Petitioners. Otherwise the entire F.I.R. is about allegations against her husband including the allegations of his extramarital affair. We have heard Mr. Kadtane, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Satpute, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Thosar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. With consent of the parties, the matter is decided finally at this stage. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that from the narration in the F.I.R. it is clear that the allegations against the Petitioners did not attract the ingredients of Section 498-A and other offences under which the F.I.R. is lodged. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand relied on the F.I.R. which contains the specific instances attracting the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the Petitioners along with his husband and mother-in-law harassed and ill-treated her. Learned APP produced investigation papers before us. Apart from the F.I.R., there is statement of the Informant's father, wherein he has mentioned the instances in which that particulars that gate was broken. However allegations against the Petitioners were only two references of Petitioner No.2 Vikram was that he was accompanying Gopal. It was alleged that for some time Informant's son was taken away and he was brought back within short time. Apart from that, there is absolutely no material against the present Petitioners. We have considered the F.I.R. and the statement of Informant's father. As we have observed, there is hardly any material against these two Petitioners. There are only general and omnibus allegations. There are no specific instances against the present Petitioners which were attracting the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the F.I.R. mentions that at the instance of the Informant's in-laws, she and her husband Gopal had started residing separately at Udgir. It clearly mentions that the Petitioners were not even residing with the Informant and her husband Gopal. 4/5 The allegations against the present Petitioners are vague. Considering this discussion, the Petitioners have made out a case for quashing of the F.I.R. and the further proceedings. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The F.I.R. bearing C.R.No. 9 of 2023 lodged at Rabale Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 4th January 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the present Petitioners only. (ii) The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)