Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DAILYLAW 3310 (BOM)

APARNA ADHIK BHOSALE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

REVN/594/2018 · 2026-08-21

body2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

901-revn-594-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 594 OF 2018 WITH CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2760 OF 2024 IN CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 594 OF 2018 Aparna Adhik Bhosale ...Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents —————— Mr. Prajakt M Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Ritesh R. Raut, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Padmanabh Pise a/w. Prathamesh Patil i/b. P. Padnamabh & Associates, Advocate frespondent no.2. Mr. Shrikant H. Yadav, APP for the respondents-State. —————— Coram : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. Date : AUGUST 21, 2026. P. C. : 1. I have received a report from the Registry based on a communication from the District Court, Sangli. The amount deposited by the accused in the District Court, Sangli, is Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/-, deposited on 8 January 2016 and 8 February 2017, respectively. Since the amounts were deposited in a criminal proceeding and not in a civil proceeding, the Bombay High Court adn 1 of 3 901-revn-594-2018.docx Circular No. A (Spl.)/0404/180/2003 dated 17 October 2003, which directs the Registry to deposit amounts exceeding Rs.2,000/- in banks in civil and MACP matters, would not apply. Hence, in the present criminal proceeding, the said amounts were not deposited in fixed deposits. 2. The advocate appearing for the applicant is not in touch with her client. Her whereabouts are not known. Hence, the advocate appearing for the applicant could not make any further positive statement as regards interest, if any, payable apart from the principal amount of the cheque. 3. Mr. Pise, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- complainant, submits that since the applicant is not traceable and her whereabouts are not known, it would be in the interest of his client that he be permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- lying with the District Court, Sangli, and the present proceeding can be compounded. 4. In view of the above, respondent No.2-complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- lying with the District Court, Sangli. The present Criminal Revision Application adn 2 of 3 901-revn-594-2018.docx stands disposed of as the dispute between the parties stands compounded. 5. All pending Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 6. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) adn 3 of 3