Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DAILYLAW 3014 (BOM)

SHIVAJI DATTATRAY YADAV v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

IA/2665/2022 · 2026-08-21

body2022

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2-REVN-321-22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 321 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2665 OF 2022 Shivaji Dattatray Yadav … Applicant V/s. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents ___________ Adv. Bhushan Jadhav a/w Siddheshwari Chawan, for the applicant. Mr. Shrikant Yadhav, APP, for the respondent – State. ___________ CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 21 AUGUST 2026 P. C. : 1. Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled in view of the consent terms entered between them on 18 June 2026. He submits that on the said day, the consent terms were taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification purpose. He further submits that as per the terms of the consent terms, the entire amount has been paid by the applicant to the respondent no. 2. 2. He submits that respondent no. 2 is present in Court and is normally been represented by an Advocate Pritesh Kharade, who has been appointed by the Legal Aid Committee. Rushi 1 of 2 2-REVN-321-22.doc 3. The complainant-respondent no. 2 is present in Court and she submits that she has received the entire amount as agreed between the parties as per the consent terms dated 18 June 2026. Hence, she further submits that she does not want to further continue with the dispute with the applicant. 4. The Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of in view of consent terms dated 18 June 2026. 5. In sequel, all interim applications stand disposed of. [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] Rushi 2 of 2