Sunil Shivaji Kamble

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.]