Bombay High Court
APPLN/1365/2025 of SATYAJEET SACHIN UDAWANT AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER on 13 October 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 934 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4566 OF 2025 SUSHILA SACHIN UDAWANT AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1365 OF 2025 SATYAJEET SACHIN UDAWANT AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
934 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4566 OF 2025
SUSHILA SACHIN UDAWANT AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1365 OF 2025
SATYAJEET SACHIN UDAWANT AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr.D.S.Patil, Advocate for the Applicants in both Applications.
Mr.C.V.Bhadane, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr.H.S.Surve, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )
DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2026
PER COURT :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and the learned APP.
2. In pursuance to the order dated 01.09.2026, the parties were directed to remain present before the learned Trial Court and point out the settlement terms in between the parties. However, though the Applicant/Accused persons were present before the Trial Court, khs/Oct.2026/4566 2026:BHC-AUG:48761-DB
however, though the Applicants/Accused persons were present before the learned Trial Court, however, informant/complainant could not appear before the Court and therefore the terms of compromise could not be executed. However, Respondent No.2 has filed the affidavit in reply before this Court and in paragraph No.3, it has been observed that, “this deponent unequivocally says that she is not objecting to the reliefs claimed in the present petition in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties.”
3. In view of the aforesaid statement, the instant applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. The Sessions Case bearing No.111/2023 registered pursuant to FIR bearing No.63/2020, for the charges punishable u/s 307, 420, 498-A, 354-A, 120-B and 506 of the IPC pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, Dist.Aurangabad is hereby quashed and set aside and both these Applications are disposed of.
( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) khs/Oct.2026/4566