All Cases

Order - Status 5: 23WP.5800-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5800 OF 2010 Mr.Jagdish Sakharam Umtol. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .... .... Mr.S.M. Oak, i/b. Sagar A. Joshi, for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 12th JULY, 2011 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State. Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 19th July, 2011. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5800 OF 2010 Mr Jagdish Sakharam Umtol ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents. Mr S.M. Oak i/by Sagar A Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 21st July, 2011. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State. In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction simplicitor to respondent No.2 to decide the application filed by the petitioner on 7th February, 2001, which is pending for decision, within a stipulated period. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Tribal and made an application for restoration of the land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions from the Competent Authority, has made a statement that said application is pending for decision. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, we direct respondent No.2 to decide the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard, on its own merit, as early as possible, in any case not beyond the period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. With these directions writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 5: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders or directions & Registrar Registrar's orders. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Mohd. Shine with S. S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP No. 2129 of 2016. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Manish Rai for petitioners in WP No. 2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ **.** July 05, 2016. P.C. : Issue notice to respondents, returnable after four weeks i.e. 2/8/2016. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1 – State. Till the next date i.e. 2/8/2016, we direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of the subject crime. However, it is clarified that there is no stay to the investigation. (PRAKASH D. NAIK *,* J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Mohd.Shine with S.S.Bijlani for Petitioner in WP No.2146 of 2016. Mr.G.K.Masand i/by Manish Rai for Petitioner in WP No.2129 of 2016. Mr.Kanishk Jayant with Mr.Harvinder Singh for Respondent no.2. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 2nd August 2016 PC :­ 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2. Heard. Learned counsel for Respondent no.2 appears. Stand over to 10 August 2016. Ad­interim relief granted earlier to continue till 10 August 2016. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents …... Mr. Mohd. Shine a/w. S.S. Bijlani, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P. No.2129 of 2016. Mr.G.K. Masand i/b. Mr.Manish Rai, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P.No.2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for Respondent - State in both the petitions. Mr. Kanishk K. Jayant, Advocate for Respondent Respondent no.2 in both the petitions. …... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2016. P.C. : Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Following issues arise for consideration: (a) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Maharashtra; (b) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab; (c) Whether FIR/complaint registered against accused persons attracts penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the SC & ST Act") 2 In the facts and reading compliant whether penal offence is attracted, learned counsel appearing for petitioners places reliance on following judgments: (a) Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. 1 (b) State of Mahrashtra Vs. Milind & Ors. 2 (c) Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. 3 (d) Ghanshyam Kala s/o. Jagat Ram Kala Vs. The State 4 (e) Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra 5 (e) Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 6 1 (1990) 3 SCC 130 2 (2001) 1 SCC 4 3 (2008) 12 SCC 531 4 2009(1) Uttaranchal Decision 639 5 2003(3) Mh.L.J 225 6 (2010) 8 SCC 775 3 Learned counsel appearing for complainant prays for dismissal of these petitions. It was submitted that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab and in relation to the State of Maharashtra, the issue is required to be considered on a broader prospective. Learned counsel referred to Article 17 of the Constitution of India. 4 Learned APP submits that investigation is likely to be completed within three to four weeks. 5 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We find that the issues raised by petitioners for consideration. 6 Rule. Rule returnable early. 7 In the meantime, further proceedings consequent to registration of FIR stands stayed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Mr. Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Mohd. Shine i/b S.S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP/2129/2016. Mr.Manish Rai for petitioner in WP/2146/2016. Mr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Kaushik Jayant a/w. Ms. Antra Jayant, Mr. Nilesh Mandavkar, Mr. Rajye Jain i/b Kanishk Jayant for respondent No.2 in WP/2129/2016 and WP/2146/2016. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : 9TH OCTOBER 2019 P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned, in view of urgency. Taken on production board. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in both petitions. 3. The subject first information report bearing C.R. No. II-15/2016, dated 18-05-2016 on the complaint of the respondent No.2 (in both petitions) for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016, are the original accused Nos.1 and 2 in the subject crime and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2129 of 2016 are the original accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the subject crime. 4. Pending investigation of the subject crime, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and accordingly the complainantrespondent No.2 has submitted consent terms before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-Panvel in Hindu Marriage Petition No.297 of 2015. The copy of the consent terms presented before the Court. Clause (4) of the consent terms reads as under :- 4 The petitioner Husband has agreed to give his consent for quashing of FIR filed by him bearing No. II-15/2016 dated 18 th May 2016 u/s 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act, 1989 and section 7(1)(5) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. 1955 with CBD Police Station, Navi Mumbai against father of the Respondent i.e., the Gharasingh Chahal, Gurmit Kaur, Gurbax Singh, Hardeep Singh Anjan, Mehersingh Randhava, K.J.S. Bhatti, Gurinderjit Saini. The Petitioner-husband is agreed to give his consent and/or file an affidavit to that effect in Writ Petition bearing No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition bearing No. 2129 of 2016 filed in respect of said FIR bearing No.II-15/2016." 5. In view of the above understanding, the parties have approached this Court for quashing the subject crime. The respondent No.2 has filed a common affidavit dated 9 th October 2019 in both Writ Petitions, i.e., Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 and in paragraph 6 thereof, has given consent to the withdrawal of all the charges levelled in the subject crime. The respondent No.2 is personally present in Court and on specific query by this Court, confirmed that he has no objection to quash the subject FIR. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaints, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1 , we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), respectively. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the petitioners for using the police and judicial machinery for settling their personal disputes. In view of this, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs in each petition. The total amount of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to "Tata Memorial Hospital", an institution that takes care of the patients suffering from cancer at advanced stage and/or terminally ill due to cancer. For the quashment to take effect, the petitioners shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petitions shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference 1 2014 AIR SCW 2065 to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est. 8. Subject to above, the writ petitions stand disposed of. [ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ] [ RANJIT MORE, 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.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.523 OF 2008 Yeshwant Prabhakar Meshram & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. The Hon'ble Registrar, District Court, Chandrapur & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.P.P.Thakare i/b D.D. Fulzele for the petitioners Mr.V.S.Masurkar, G.P. for the respondents CORAM : J.N.PATEL & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.: Heard. These two petitioners have approached this court seeking a declaration that they are entitled for being considered for the candidature for selection and entitled to appear for the written examination to be held on 27.1.08 for the post of Clerk and Peon respectively on the establishment of District and Sessions Court, Chandrapur and therefore, this court should direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the written examination to be held on 27.01.2008. In view of the fact that the examinations are going to be held on 27.01.2008, we called upon the learned G.P. to get instructions from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. Accordingly, the communication received in respect of both the candidates from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur is placed on record. Copies are furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned G.P. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are eligible in all respects and qualify for being considered for appointment to the post of Clerk and Peon respectively. 2 The communication received from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in respect of Petitioner, Yashwant Prabhakar Meshram clearly indicates that he has not filled in the required information and therefore, his application form came to be rejected as the advertisement clearly provides for want of complete information, the application form will not be considered and will be rejected. Similarly, in case of Bhimrao Maroti Undirwade, he not only failed to provide the necessary information but also did not calculate his age correctly. Well, the incorrect calculation of age will not make any difference but the other deficiencies are of substantial nature. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we find that as the petitioners have failed to furnish the required information which is of substantial nature, for this deficiency the respondent Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur was justified in rejecting their application. As such, the petition is dismissed. 3 The communication received from the Principal, District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in respect of the petitioners be retained on record and marked 'X' collectively for identification. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3720 OF 2003 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. OF 2003 Balbirsingh Hansa Singh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.S.D.Nangre for applicant Mr.T.R.Yadav i/b Mr.S.V.Marwadi for Respondent nos.2 to 6. .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 3, 2005 P.C. Heard both sides. Sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Application is disposed of. [V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2009 Sou. Ushadevi Sambhaji Patil ...... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359 OF 2009 Shri Sambhaji Anandrao Patil ....... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17 th February, 2009 P.C.: Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the present applicants have defrauded depositors to the tune of Rs 8,27,27,308/. In the affidavit in reply filed by the State it is stated that loans have been given to fictitious and bogus persons who are not in existence. Taking into consideration the allegations which are levelled in the complaint and the affidavit in reply filed by the State, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Both these applications for anticipatory bail are accordingly rejected. Both these applications are disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.414/2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359/2009 Office notes,Office Memoranda of Coram Appearances,Court's orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's order Mr.Pradeep Gole for the Applicant Mr.Kharge,APP for State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 7th October,2009 P.C. . The learned counsel for the applicant/ original accused submits that he has served the respondents thrice. However, despite of the service they are not appearing. This Revision Application is filed against the concurrent findings of the conviction of the Sessions Court ,Satara and the J.M.F.C. Satara. Thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ordering the applicant/accused to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- .The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already deposited . Rs.30,000/- . The Revision Application is admitted. Issue notice to the respondents. R/o 30/11/2009. The bail application is pressed. The applicant accused is released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like amount. The bail application is disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)