Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3723 (BOM)

SHREYAS S/O MAHIPAL PARDHI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO PS RAN PRATAP NAGAR, NAGPUR AND ANOTHER

APPP/2476/2026 · 2026-08-28

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APL585-2025 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NO.2476 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.585 OF 2025 (D) SHREYAS S/O MAHIPAL PARDHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders and Registrar's orders ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Mr. Samarpit Chauhan, Advocate with Adv. S.V. Sharma and Adv. S.P. Rajurkar, for the present applicant Mr. S. I. Gatte, Advocate for the original non-applicant-accused Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the non-applicant/State ------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 28.08.2026 1. Heard. 2. The applicant in the present matter has approached this Court for recall of order dated 02.05.2025 passed by this Court, after almost 11 months. 3. While passing the order dated 02.05.2025, this Court recorded physical presence of the applicant herein. This Court, further observed that she submitted the documents about her marriage and even on a query put to her, she stated before this Court that she wants to live a happy life and as she has performed the marriage with the applicant-accused, she does not want to proceed with the criminal matter against him. 4. By the present application, the applicant has now nd.thawre 2026:BHC-NAG:11275-DB APL585-2025 2/3 resiled from the said statement and has come up with a case that she appeared before this Court and made such statement under coercion, pressure, and because of intimidation. 5. In the above-referred backdrop, if it is the case of the applicant that such statement was made before this Court under coercion and makes serious allegations against the non- applicant-accused, which the learned counsel for the non- applicant disputes, the only remedy available would be to lodge an appropriate complaint, which can be investigated, or file appropriate proceedings wherein by leading evidence, she can establish such allegations. 6. We are unable to understand what prevented the applicant to point it out to the Court when she personally appeared before this Court about such pressure or coercion or intimation. Further why she remained silent for about 11 months and no complaint was made to police even till today. 7. It is to be noted that initially when a query was put to the learned counsel for the applicant about the maintainability of the present application, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ..v.. Krishna Kumar Pandey, reported in (2021) 14 SCC 683, wherein it has been held that the exceptions carved out in Section 362 of the CrPC would apply only to those provisions where the Court has been expressly authorized either by the Code or by nd.thawre APL585-2025 3/3 any other law but not to the inherent power of the Court. It is further held that the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC is saved, where an order has been passed by the criminal Court, which is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice, or where the proceeding amounts to abuse of the process of Court. 8. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, to secure ends of justice, the present application came to be filed and in view of the above referred judgment, the application for recall is maintainable. 9. There is no dispute as regards the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra); however, on having made the above-referred observation, the learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present application. 10. Permission is granted. 11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies as available under the law. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) nd.thawre Signed by: Mr. Niranjan Thawre Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/08/2026 20:39:45