SACHIN KISANRAO DANGE AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
APPLN 93/2021
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2021
SACHIN KISANRAO DANGE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr.V.V.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr.R.V.Dasalkar, APP for respondent No.1.
Mr.D.J.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
B.U.DEBADWAR, JJ.)
DATE : MARCH 25, 2021
PER COURT :
1.
The learned Advocates for the applicants and respondent No.2
submit that the wife has started living with the husband/ applicant No.1.
Both have reconciled their differences and are living together under one
roof. Other family relatives like applicant Nos.2 to 4 are residing
separately. The husband and the wife assure that they would show
maturity and refrain from indulging in petty quarrels. It is, therefore,
jointly prayed that the FIR filed by the wife may be quashed.
2.
We have perused the FIR. As the husband has assured the wife that
he would be patient and take care of her and since this statement is
reciprocated with the same sentiments by the wife, we find that in these
khs/Mar.2021/93-d
- 2 -
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and since the marriage has
been saved, the FIR dated 21/12/2020 could be quashed. We are
informed that the marriage is more than 15 years old, and the couple have
children who are 12 years and 9 years old, respectively.
3.
We have also recorded the statements of applicant Nos. 2 to 4 that
they have not interfered with the marital life of the couple and would
never interfere anytime in future.
4.
In view of the above, and without laying down a precedent, this
application is allowed after recording the statements of applicant
No.1/husband and respondent No.2/wife. The FIR No.0392/2020 dated
21/12/2020, registered with the Pundlik Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad
is quashed.
5.
Needless to state, in the event the wife finds that the husband has
not stood by his statement made before this Court, she would be at liberty
to take recourse to the legal remedies available to her in Law. So also, the
same relief would be available to the husband.
( B.U. DEBADWAR, J. )
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
khs/Mar.2021/93-d