SHILPA RAJESH SUTAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR — APL/80/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 07th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM070057672026
Filing Number
APL/1764/2026
Filing Date
07-May-2026
Registration No
APL/80/2026
Registration Date
07-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
QUASHING OF FIR C.R., CHARGE SHEET OR PROSECUTION ( 26 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
07-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHILPA RAJESH SUTAR
Adv. Nakul Vivek Shukla
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
-
2.ASHWINI NIKHIL PATIL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjitsinha Raja BhonsaleView PDF
-
07-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjitsinha Raja BhonsaleView PDF
Case Summary: APL/80/2026 Decision: The Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Circuit Bench) allowed Criminal Application No. 80 of 2026 filed by Shilpa Rajesh Sutar and other advocates, quashing FIR No. 214 of 2026 and all consequent proceedings. The court found the dispute arose from matrimonial discord during divorce proceedings and was private in nature; the parties voluntarily settled with genuine consent affidavits, and continuing prosecution would constitute abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-May-2026
At 3.00 P.M.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
-
07-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. APL/80/2026
Case Summary: APL/80/2026 Decision: The Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Circuit Bench) allowed Criminal Application No. 80 of 2026 filed by Shilpa Rajesh Sutar and other advocates, quashing FIR No. 214 of 2026 and all consequent proceedings. The court found the dispute arose from matrimonial discord during divorce proceedings and was private in nature; the parties voluntarily settled with genuine consent affidavits, and continuing prosecution would constitute abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts