BHAIYYASAHEB TUKARAM PATIL AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42427
                                                                      977appln166-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       977 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 166 OF 2026

                              Bhaiyyasaheb Tukaram Patil And Others
                                              VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                                ...
            Mr. Chaudhari Dhananjay Rajendra, Advocate for the Applicants
            Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State
            Mr. Jitendra S. Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ( Appointed)


                                  CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                    Dated : 11th September, 2026
            PER COURT :-


            1.       Heard learned Advocate for the Applicants and learned

            Advocate appearing for respondent no.2-complainant.


            2.       At the outset, the learned APP submits that the original

            complainant-Wife had lodged two First Information Reports, bearing

            Crime Nos. 90 of 2015 registered with Dhule Police Station, District

            Dhule and second bearing Crime No. 43 of 2015 Yawal Police Station

            Dist. Jalgaon for the offences punishable under sections wherein similar

            set of allegations were made. The only distinct is that the present

            applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were made accused in the second FIR and

            applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 were added along with applicant nos. 1, 2

            and 3 in the first FIR i.e. Crime No. 90/2015. The nature of allegations

            in both the FIRs are similar and same facts were stated. He submits that

            the trial, in pursuance of the second FIR i.e. Crime No. 43 of 2015 was

            concluded before the learned JMFC, Yawal, District Jalgaon and all the


                                                                               1 of 3
                                                          977appln166-26


applicants have been acquitted on the basis of compromise pursis. The

learned Advocate for the Applicant invites my attention to the order

dated 12.03.2020. The order specifically records the reasons of

acquittal and also the observations pertaining to the evidence led

before the said trial Court by the respondent-wife who was PW-2-

Pratibha wherein, she had rescinded from supporting the prosecution

story. The learned Advocate for the applicants also submits that the

parties had entered into settlement and settlement pursis was filed

before the learned JMFC, Yawal, informing that they are happily

cohabiting together and the applicant does not want to pursue the said

criminal proceedings.


3.       The learned Advocate appearing for the       respondent no.2-

complainant does not dispute the aforesaid fact. He, however, submits

that presently, the parties are not residing together and they are

residing separately. However, there is no fresh complaint or allegation

as on today to his knowledge about any new FIR of proceeding lodged

between the parties.


4.       The most important aspect that is to be taken into

consideration that there were two FIRs on the similar set of allegations

lodged by the respondent-wife with different police stations, due to

which two different proceedings were adopted against the applicants.

Further more, one of the proceedings on the similar set of allegations

have led into acquittal. Even the record suggests that the parties have

settled among themselves and compromise to that effect was filed

                                                                   2 of 3
                                                                     977appln166-26


           before the Court of law. In the interest of justice and by taking

           commutative view of the matter, when the second FIR was entertained

           and has led into acquittal, then the FIR which based on the similar set

           of allegations cannot sustain. On this ground alone, the application

           deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:


                                           ORDER

           (a)   Criminal application stands allowed.

           (c)   First Information Report bearing Crime No 90 of 2015 dated
                 16.04.2015 registered with Dhule Police Station, District Dhule
                 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504,
                 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential
                 proceeding       bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 278 of 2015
                 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
                 Dhule along-with the order taking cognizance dated 16.06.2015
                 passed in the above referred criminal case are hereby quashed
                 and set aside.

           (d)   No order as to costs.

           (c)   Fees of the appointed Advocate is quantified to Rs.7,500/-
                 (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to be paid by the
                 Legal Services Sub Committee, High Court, Aurangabad.




                                                        (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                              3 of 3