Madhukar Sheshrao Kulkarni ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another

ik-26061375 Bombay High Court 18 November 2024 • WRIT PETITION NO. 1155 OF 2022; CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1922 OF 2022; Writ Petition No. 1155 of 2022 • 10 min read

Judges (2)

S.G. Chapalgaonkar Coram Vibha V. Kankanwadi Delivered

Counsel (5)

A.B. Kadethankar Counsel Respondent A.V. Lavte Counsel Respondent N.K. Tungar Counsel Petitioner Shaikh Majhar A. Jahagirdar Counsel Respondent Vishal A. Kakade Counsel Respondent

Parties (6)

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Respondent State of Maharashtra Respondent Chandrakant Gangadharrao Patil Petitioner Durgaprasad Rajeshwarrao Deshpande Respondent Suraksha Chandrakantrao Patil Petitioner Vijaykumar Chandrakantrao Patil Petitioner

Case Significance

Madhukar Sheshrao Kulkarni ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another is a Bombay High Court decision dated November 18, 2024 (citation: ik-26061375). A legal practitioner, his wife, and son sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 109, 120-B, 34, 447, 451, 452, 384 IPC registered at Bhagya Nagar Police Station, Nanded, filed by an Ad-hoc District Judge (respondent No. 6, the petitioner's daughter's husband) alleging wrongful confinement and house trespass. The Court found the petitioners, being parents of the complainant's wife, were invited by their daughter and resided at her pleasure, and there was no criminal intent in their entry — th The bench comprised Justices S.G. Chapalgaonkar and Vibha V. Kankanwadi. The judgment was delivered by Justice Vibha V. Kankanwadi. Counsel appearing: A.B. Kadethankar (counsel for respondent), A.V. Lavte (counsel for respondent), N.K. Tungar (counsel for petitioner), Shaikh Majhar A. Jahagirdar (counsel for respondent), Vishal A. Kakade (counsel for respondent).

Summary

A legal practitioner, his wife, and son sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 109, 120-B, 34, 447, 451, 452, 384 IPC registered at Bhagya Nagar Police Station, Nanded, filed by an Ad-hoc District Judge (respondent No. 6, the petitioner's daughter's husband) alleging wrongful confinement and house trespass. The Court found the petitioners, being parents of the complainant's wife, were invited by their daughter and resided at her pleasure, and there was no criminal intent in their entry — the allegations did not make out the charged offences. The FIR and consequential criminal proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process of law.

What was the outcome of Madhukar Sheshrao Kulkarni ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another?

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (ik-26061375)