SUMUKH SHAMRAJ PATHAK vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR — WP/2519/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010582392025
Filing Number
WP/22590/2025
Filing Date
12-Nov-2025
Registration No
WP/2519/2026
Registration Date
07-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe
Bench Type
Division
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
Quashing FIR, C.R., Charge Sheet - Crime against Women and Children ( 106 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 13-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUMUKH SHAMRAJ PATHAK
Adv. Hitendra Parab
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
-
2.SAYALI SUMUKH PATHAK
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF
The Bombay High Court quashed FIR No. 349/2025 (registered under BNS sections including 84, 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) and Maharashtra's black magic act) against petitioners Sumukh Shamraj Pathak, Medha Shamraj Pathak, and Shreya Anand Sankhe, after all parties amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute. The respondent-wife (Sayali Sumukh Pathak) gave written consent for FIR quashing and stated she would pursue mutual divorce; the State did not oppose. Petitioner Sumukh was ordered to pay ₹25,000 costs to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe
-
12-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. WP/2519/2026
The Bombay High Court quashed FIR No. 349/2025 (registered under BNS sections including 84, 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) and Maharashtra's black magic act) against petitioners Sumukh Shamraj Pathak, Medha Shamraj Pathak, and Shreya Anand Sankhe, after all parties amicably resolved their matrimonial dispute. The respondent-wife (Sayali Sumukh Pathak) gave written consent for FIR quashing and stated she would pursue mutual divorce; the State did not oppose. Petitioner Sumukh was ordered to pay ₹25,000 costs to the High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts