{"id":58049,"date":"2009-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-21T03:54:09","modified_gmt":"2017-03-20T22:24:09","slug":"sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3299 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n     1.     Sachin Raosaheb Phunde,\n     2.     Raosaheb Laxman Phunde,\n     3.     Shashikala Raosaheb Phunde,\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     4.     Sushash Raosaheb Phunde,\n\n            All Above R\/o. 20.21, Raghoba\n            Patil Nagar, Kharadi, Tq. Haveli,\n            Dist. Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                                                      ..Applicants.\n\n                      VERSUS\n\n\n     1.     Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde,\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n            R\/o. A\/p. Ramrao Govindrao\n            Jadhavar, Panchayat Samitee\n                      \n            Vasahat, Paranda, Tq.Paranda,\n            Dist. Osmanabad.\n\n     2.     State of Maharashtra\n                     \n                                                 ..Respondents.\n\n\n\n     Shri.S.S.Sayyad, Advocate for applicants.\n      \n\n\n     Shri.A.V.Sant & Shri.S.R.Dheble, Advocate for\n     respondent No. 1.\n   \n\n\n\n     Shri.N.H.Borade, A.P.P. for State.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                 DATED : 20th JANUARY, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
     PER COURT<\/p>\n
     .         Rule, heard forthwith with consent of parties.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     .         This   criminal   application is       filed       praying\n\n     that    in   view of agreed terms of compromise             deed      in\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:16:00 :::<\/span>\n                                          (    2     )\n\n\n\n\n     M.A.No.           23\/2007,    dated          10.9.2008,          the      complaint\n\n     bearing          R.C.C.No.29\/2008,           pending        in the        Court       of\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n     Judicial           Magistrate,      First          Class,        Paranda         dated\n\n<\/pre>\n
     29.05.2007 may kindly be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     2.          Brief facts of the case are as under.\n<\/p>\n
     .           Applicant        Nos.       1 and 4 are sons of applicant<\/p>\n
     Nos.     2 and 3.         The applicant No.             1 is Civil Engineer<\/p>\n
     and applicant No.            4 is student.\n<\/p>\n
     3.          The<\/p>\n
                           applicant          No.       1    married         with        the<\/p>\n
     respondent          No.      1 on 16-6-2006.            After marriage              the<\/p>\n
     respondent          resided with the applicant No.                      1 at Pune.\n<\/p>\n
     It     is     the case of the applicant that the                        respondent<\/p>\n
     No.     1 stayed for 4 days at Pune, thereafter, she went<\/p>\n
     to      her       parent’s     house.          She      stayed         there       till<\/p>\n
     10.7.2006.           Again    she went to Pune and stayed                        there<\/p>\n
     with     applicant No.         1 till 19-7-2006.                 On 19th         July,<\/p>\n
     2006     she       went   to her fathers house along                      with      her<\/p>\n
     brother who came to take her.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     4.          It      is further case of the applicants that                            in\n\n     spite       of     repeated requests on telephone,                      respondent\n\n     had     not come to Pune, therefore, the applicant No.                                  2\n\n\n\n\n                                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:16:00 :::<\/span>\n                                            (     3    )\n\n\n\n\n     went     to bring her back.                 However, the respondent                 No.\n\n     1 refused to come back.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n     5.         It      is     further          case of the       applicants            that\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     respondent         No.        1 came to Pune along with her parents\n\n<\/pre>\n
     and    other       relatives          on        28th   August,        2006.         The<\/p>\n
     respondent         No.        1 and her relatives, on the same day,<\/p>\n
     had    taken       away all the belongings                  including          golden<\/p>\n
     ornaments,         clothes          which were given at the                 time      of<\/p>\n
     marriage        without permission of applicant No.                          1.       It<\/p>\n
     is<\/p>\n
     to<\/p>\n
            the case of the applicants that the respondent due<\/p>\n
            misunderstanding filed false private complaint and<\/p>\n
     all    the      applicants’ family members were                       arrayed         as<\/p>\n
     accused      persons           to    the said        complaint.           The      said<\/p>\n
     private      complaint was filed by the respondent on 29th<\/p>\n
     May,     2007 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate,                                First<\/p>\n
     Class, Paranda.\n<\/p>\n
     6.         The      Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda<\/p>\n
     on     25.7.2007 directed the investigation under section<\/p>\n
     156(3)       of Criminal Procedure Code.                    After       completion<\/p>\n
     of      investigation,              the      police     authorities               filed<\/p>\n
     chargesheet         on        13.5.2008         and on the basis            of     that<\/p>\n
     chargesheet,            the     Judicial Magistrate,               First       Class,<\/p>\n
     Paranda      had        issued process on 9-6-2008                   against        the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:16:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (    4    )<\/p>\n
     applicants.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n     7.         At     the same time, the               respondent\/complainant\n\n     had   filed maintenance proceedings before the                             learned\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     Judicial        Magistrate,          First     Class,      Paranda          bearing\n\n     M.A.No.         23\/2007        on 29th January, 2007               against        the\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     applicant No.           1.\n\n\n\n     8.         It     is     the case of the applicants that                       after\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n     filing     the criminal proceedings under section 125                               of\n\n     Criminal\n\n     occurred\n                        \n<\/pre>\n
                     Procedure Code, the subsequent<\/p>\n
                     whereby the parties have amicably arrived at
\n                                                                        developments<\/p>\n
     compromise        and        filed    the same       before        the      learned<\/p>\n
     Judicial        Magistrate,          First     Class, Paranda             on     10th<\/p>\n
     September, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     9.         It     has        been    specifically          stated         in      the<\/p>\n
     compromise        deed        that    the respondent had              filed       the<\/p>\n
     complaint       against         the present applicants                and      other<\/p>\n
     relatives       under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code by<\/p>\n
     way   of misunderstanding and therefore, the respondent<\/p>\n
     had   decided herself to withdraw the complaint bearing<\/p>\n
     No.       29\/2008.            The    respondent         No.          1      further<\/p>\n
     undertakes        that        she    is   not      having      any       grievance<\/p>\n
     against     the        applicants.            Therefore,         she      is      not<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:16:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (     5   )<\/p>\n
     interested          to conduct the proceedings.                      It is further<\/p>\n
     case     of     the applicants that parties have arrived                                at<\/p>\n
     compromise deed, but, due to non compoundable offence,<\/p>\n
     they     cannot          withdraw the complaint.                 Therefore,           the<\/p>\n
     applicants          have filed this application under                          section<\/p>\n
     482     of     Criminal         Procedure         Code      for      quashing         the<\/p>\n
     complaint          bearing        No.         29\/2008 as there is              no     any<\/p>\n
     other efficacious remedy available to the applicants.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     10.          The         learned         counsel         appearing          for       the\n\n     applicants\n\n     the     parties\n                           \n                         submitted\n\n                              is\n                                          that since the dispute\n\n                                    settled by way            of    compromise,\n                                                                                    between\n\n                                                                                           the\n                          \n     complaint          filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First\n\n     Class,        Paranda         may be quashed and set aside.                      It     is\n\n     further        submitted that the respondent No.                          1 wants to\n      \n\n\n     withdraw        the       complaint, but due to non                    compoundable\n   \n\n\n\n     offence,           the        complainant             cannot       withdraw           the\n\n     complaint,          therefore, they filed present                       application\n\n     as there is no other remedy to applicants.                                In support\n\n\n\n\n\n     of     his     contentions,             the       learned      counsel         for the\n\n     applicants          relied on reported judgment of this                            Court\n\n     in     the case of Biswaroop Ghosh & Others V.                              State       of\n\n\n\n\n\n     Maharashtra           and others<\/a>, reported in 2008(2)                         Bom.C.R.\n\n     (Cri.)       44.      He further submitted that it is held                              in\n\n     that     judgment          that     the powers of High                 Court        under\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:16:00 :::<\/span>\n                                           (   6    )\n\n\n\n\n     section       482     of        Criminal Procedure         Code         under     its\n\n     inherent          jurisdiction do not get curtailed by section\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n     320     of    Criminal          Procedure         Code    which          prohibits\n\n     compounding of un compoundable offence.                          It is further\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     submitted          that     the applicants and respondent No.                         1\n\n     have     approached         this Court not for compounding,                       but\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     for     quashing          the    F.I.R.,      hence,      the      F.I.R.         and\n\n     chargesheet          are     liable to be quashed.                 The     learned\n\n     counsel,          during the course of hearing of the                      matter,\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     produced          copy of the order passed by the Civil Judge,\n\n     Senior\n                          \n<\/pre>\n
                  Division, Osmanabad and read out the<\/p>\n
     portion of the order.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               relevant<\/p>\n
     11.          The      learned        A.P.P.         appearing           for       the<\/p>\n
     respondent          No.     2 submitted that it is true that                      the<\/p>\n
     powers       of     this Court under section 482                   of     Criminal<\/p>\n
     Procedure          Code under its inherent jurisdiction do not<\/p>\n
     get     curtailed          by section 320 of           Criminal          Procedure<\/p>\n
     Code.        The respondent No.              1 remained present in                the<\/p>\n
     Court.        The applicant No.              1 husband was also present<\/p>\n
     in the Court.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     12.          The     applicant       No.     1 husband and            respondent\n\n     No.      1    wife were called upon to                   express        themselves\n\n     about the compromise.               The respondent wife stated that\n\n\n\n\n                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:16:00 :::<\/span>\n                                             (    7   )\n\n\n\n\n     she     agreed      for the compromise and with free                        consent\n\n     the     compromise         deed is filed and she stated that                         in\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n     view     of the compromise deed, she is not interested to\n\n     pursue     the      complaint              bearing    R.C.C.No.            29\/2008,\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     pending       in    the Court of Judicial                Magistrate,            First\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Class, Paranda and stated that same may be quashed and<\/p>\n
     set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     13.        After         hearing       the learned counsel               appearing<\/p>\n
     for     the applicants and respondent No.                       1 and 2, I           am<\/p>\n
     this<\/p>\n
     of the considered view that in view of the judgment of<\/p>\n
              Court reported in the case of Biswaroop Ghosh                                 &<\/p>\n
     Others     Vs.      State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008(2)<\/p>\n
     Bom.C.R.       (Cri.)       44,    the present             petition         can      be<\/p>\n
     disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
     14.       I        have     perused          the       contents            of      the<\/p>\n
     application.        At Exh.        D to this application, there is<\/p>\n
     a     copy of compromise deed filed in Misc.                         Application<\/p>\n
     No.      23\/2007 by the applicants and respondent No.1 on<\/p>\n
     10.9.2008.         In the said compromise deed, in para 2, it<\/p>\n
     is      mentioned         that         the         respondent\/wife              filed<\/p>\n
     application for maintenance.                    In said application, the<\/p>\n
     applicant          No.     1     has        paid     lump-sum        amount          of<\/p>\n
     Rs.3,51,000\/-        (Rs.        Three lacs, fifty one                   thousand)<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:16:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (   8    )<\/p>\n
     towards         maintenance         which     is      accepted            by      the<\/p>\n
     applicants          as one time settlement.               In para 3, it             is<\/p>\n
     stated       that from misunderstanding, the applicant                            No.<\/p>\n
     1     and the respondent No.             1 have filed various                  cases<\/p>\n
     against       each        others.     It is further stated that                   the<\/p>\n
     case is filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division,<\/p>\n
     Osmanabad        i.e.        H.M.P.     No.22\/2006 by the               applicant<\/p>\n
     No.      1.     Another case bearing R.C.C.No.                      1155\/07       was<\/p>\n
     also     filed       before Judicial Magistrate,                    First      Class<\/p>\n
     (6),     Pune.        Further,        another       case       is    filed       i.e.<\/p>\n
     P.K.No.38\/07<\/p>\n
                           before<\/p>\n
     Another case is filed i.e.
\n                                      the Family Court No.<\/p>\n
                                                 Sachin Vs.
\n                                                                             4,<\/p>\n
                                                                    Sarika bearing
\n                                                                                    Pune.\n<\/p>\n
     R.C.C.No.           494\/07     which is pending            before         Judicial<\/p>\n
     Magistrate,          First Class, Court No.               5.     It is further<\/p>\n
     stated       that Criminal Revision Petition No.                        538\/08 is<\/p>\n
     pending       before the District and Sessions Court, Pune.\n<\/p>\n
     It      is    further        stated      that       the    applicants             and<\/p>\n
     respondent          No.    1 have agreed by consent to                    withdraw<\/p>\n
     all     these       cases and co-operate with each                    other       and<\/p>\n
     this is acceptable to parties to this compromise deed.\n<\/p>\n
     15.          In para 4, it is stated that the applicant has<\/p>\n
     filed     R.C.C.No.          29\/2008 before Judicial                Magistrate,<\/p>\n
     First Class, Paranda under section 498-A of I.P.                                 Code<\/p>\n
     against       the     respondents       and        their       relatives         i.e.<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:16:00 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (    9    )<\/p>\n
     State Vs.        Sachin, by misunderstanding and she herself<\/p>\n
     has decided to withdraw that complaint.                         It is further<\/p>\n
     stated that the applicant\/respondent No.                          1 had no any<\/p>\n
     complaint        against     the       respondents\/         applicants           and<\/p>\n
     their     relatives        and she does not want                to     prosecute<\/p>\n
     R.C.C.No.          29\/2008        pending        before       the         Judicial<\/p>\n
     Magistrate,        First     Class, Paranda.             Both the          parties<\/p>\n
     agreed     for the contents in para 4.                   In para 5, it             is<\/p>\n
     further         stated     that     the      respondent           No.        1   and<\/p>\n
     applicant        No.      1 by their free will have decided                        to<\/p>\n
     end<\/p>\n
     before
\n             their<\/p>\n
                the<\/p>\n
                       relationship<\/p>\n
                        appropriate
\n                                             and filed<\/p>\n
                                             Court and this
\n                                                              divorce<\/p>\n
                                                                       decision
\n                                                                               petition<\/p>\n
                                                                                        is<\/p>\n
     taken     by consent of both the parties.                     It is        further<\/p>\n
     stated      that         both     the       parties      would            have     no<\/p>\n
     relationship with each other, henceforth and they will<\/p>\n
     not     claim     any     right     and they        will      not         file   any<\/p>\n
     criminal or civil case against each other.                           It is also<\/p>\n
     agreed     to     co-operate       with      each      other         in    divorce<\/p>\n
     proceeding.            After divorce both the parties will free<\/p>\n
     to get marry.           This is acceptable to both the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     In     para 6, it is further stated that both the parties<\/p>\n
     have agreed to resolve dispute and both the parties to<\/p>\n
     bear     their     own expenses and same is acceptable.                            In<\/p>\n
     the     end, it is prayed that in respect of contents                              of<\/p>\n
     the     application and terms between the parties,                            Misc.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:16:01 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          (   10    )\n\n\n\n\n     Application No.         23\/2007 may be disposed of.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n     16.       The     learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,\n\n     Paranda       on 10th September, 2008 has passed the                          order\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     which reads thus :-\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n               .         Applicant           present, identified by Adv.\n\n               D.A.Nikalji.              Oppendent        present,             he       is\n\n               identified           by       Adv.A.S.Sayyad.                 Applicant\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n               admits        that        she           received         amount          of\n\n\n\n               whole\n                       \n               Rs.3,51,000\/-          as     a maintenance amount for\n\n                         life and she is not willing to                        conduct\n                                                                                          a\n                      \n               further         this      application.              Both        parties\n\n               further       admit their signatures and                     contents.\n\n<\/pre>\n
               Hence, purshis is read and recorded in respect<\/p>\n
               of this application only.\n<\/p>\n
     17.       During     the       course        of hearing,          the     learned<\/p>\n
     counsel       appearing     for the applicants,                 has      tendered<\/p>\n
     certified       copy of the application filed before                          Civil<\/p>\n
     Judge,         Senior          Division,               Osmanabad               being<\/p>\n
     H.M.P.No.22\/2007        and order passed by the Civil Judge,<\/p>\n
     Senior Division, Osmanabad reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
               .         The          Petitioner               and        respondent<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:16:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (    11    )<\/p>\n
                  voluntarily filed compromise deed Exh.                              25 and<\/p>\n
                  settled            their       dispute       amicably.                Hence,<\/p>\n
                  petition       is      allowed in terms               of       compromise<\/p>\n
                  deed        Exh.     25 and in view of these compromise<\/p>\n
                  terms,       it      is    declared that            petitioner           and<\/p>\n
                  respondent          separated         by decree           of     divorce.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  The     effect        of       this       order     and        decree      be<\/p>\n
                  implemented          after one month from the date                         of<\/p>\n
                  this order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18.          The<\/p>\n
                          applicant          husband and respondent No.<\/p>\n
     wife remained present before this Court on the date of
\n                                                                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
     hearing.           The wife respondent No.                  1 was specifically<\/p>\n
     asked        whether        agreement          terms      of     Exh.          25       in<\/p>\n
     Misc.Appln.No.              23\/2007,          dated 10.9.2007               have     been<\/p>\n
     recorded          with     her     free consent.               She      specifically<\/p>\n
     stated       that        those terms are acceptable to her.                           She<\/p>\n
     has     no    grievance against the applicants                          now.         They<\/p>\n
     have     mutually          agreed       for the contents in                  the     said<\/p>\n
     application.              She further stated that she has no                          any<\/p>\n
     hesitation          or     objection to support this                    application<\/p>\n
     filed by the applicants before this Court.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n     19.          In     view of the above, I am of the                          considered\n\n     view     that this Court has power to grant the prayer in\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:16:01 :::<\/span>\n                                           (     12   )\n\n\n\n\n     the     application.          This Court has already taken a view\n\n     in     the case of Biswaroop Ghosh & Others V.                          State       of\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n     Maharashtra           and others<\/a>, 2008(2) Bom.                 C.R.     (Cri.) 44\n\n<\/pre>\n
     by relying the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases<\/p>\n
     of     B.S.Joshi        & ors.       V.    State of Harayana and                 anr,<\/p>\n
     reported           in 2004(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 93 and in the case<\/p>\n
     of     Abasaheb        Yadav Honmane Vs.            State of        Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     reported        in     2008(1)    Bom.      C.R.(Cri.) 584              that      the<\/p>\n
     powers        of     High Court under section 482                  of     Criminal<\/p>\n
     Procedure          Code under its inherent jurisdiction do not<\/p>\n
     get<\/p>\n
     Code,
\n             curtailed<\/p>\n
               which<\/p>\n
                             by section 320 of<\/p>\n
                            prohibits compounding of
\n                                                           Criminal          Procedure<\/p>\n
                                                                    uncompoundable<\/p>\n
     offences.\n<\/p>\n
     20.       In        view of above discussion, I am of the view<\/p>\n
     that     no        purpose    will    be    served        by     keeping         this<\/p>\n
     application pending.             The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
     case     of Dr.Arvind Barsaul etc.                  Vs.    State of          Madhya<\/p>\n
     Pradesh       &     Anr.     2008 ALL S.C.R.          2111, in          para      10,<\/p>\n
     held that :-\n<\/p>\n
               .             The    parties have compromised and                       the<\/p>\n
               complainant                Smt.               Sadhna            Madnawat<\/p>\n
               categorically submitted that she does not want<\/p>\n
               to        prosecute the appellants.                Even       otherwise<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:16:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (     13     )<\/p>\n
               also,          in the peculiar facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
               of the case and in the interest of justice, in<\/p>\n
               our        opinion,           continuation              of       criminal<\/p>\n
               proceedings           would be an abuse of the                    process<\/p>\n
               of    law.          We, in exercise of our power                      under<\/p>\n
               Article         142     of    the      Constitution,             deem      it<\/p>\n
               proper         to     quash      the       criminal          proceedings<\/p>\n
               pending         against the appellants emanating from<\/p>\n
               the F.I.R.            lodged under section 498-A, I.P.C.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     21.       In<\/p>\n
     Application
\n                     the<\/p>\n
                         is
\n                                result,        the       application<\/p>\n
                                allowed in terms of prayer clause
\n                                                                              succeeds.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                          B.\n<\/p>\n
     In    view     of    agreed       terms         of    compromise           deed      in<\/p>\n
     M.A.No.23\/2007           dated 10.9.2008, the complaint bearing<\/p>\n
     R.C.C.No.29\/2008           pending       in     the Court           of     Judicial<\/p>\n
     Magistrate,         First       Class, Paranda dated 29.5.2007                       is<\/p>\n
     quashed      and set aside and application is disposed                               of<\/p>\n
     as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      [ S.S.SHINDE, J.]<\/p>\n
     ssc\/criapln3299.08<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:16:01 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009 Bench: S. S. Shinde IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3299 OF 2008 1. Sachin Raosaheb Phunde, 2. Raosaheb Laxman Phunde, 3. Shashikala Raosaheb Phunde, 4. Sushash Raosaheb Phunde, All Above R\/o. 20.21, Raghoba […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-20T22:24:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-20T22:24:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1594,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-20T22:24:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-20T22:24:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-20T22:24:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009"},"wordCount":1594,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009","name":"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-20T22:24:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sachin-raosaheb-phunde-vs-sou-sarika-sachin-phunde-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sachin Raosaheb Phunde vs Sou.Sarika Sachin Phunde on 20 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}