1 wp2490.10.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2490 OF 2010 Kavita Sanjay Patil & ors. ..Petitioners. v/s. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Ms. Kiran Singh, advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State. Mr. Pandharinath D. Patil, original complainant present in court. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED :- NOVEMBER 18, 2010. P.C. 1. Considering the fact that the FIR registered as C.R.No.200 of 2010 with Dahisar Police Station is the outcome of the matrimonial dispute between the Pratibha Patil and Satish Patil and the complaint was lodged by Respondent No.2 being father of Mrs. Pratibha Patil; coupled with the fact that Respondent no.2 has now reconciled and has realised that the complaint made by him was on the basis of his suspicion, he has no objection for grant of relief, as claimed in the present Petition. 2 wp2490.10.sxw 2. Besides, learned APP in all fairness submits that after investigation, it transpires that the witnesses have not supported the case of the complainant and in fact would reveal that the relationship between the deceased husband and wife was always congenial. If it is so, submits the learned APP, even though the allegation is one under section 306 of I.P.C., in the fact situation of the present case, the relief as prayed by the Petitioner be granted. 3. Taking over all view of the matter, we allow this Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause (i), as prayed. Undertaking given by the Petitioners is taken on record, which is acceptable to the Respondent No.2 complainant, who is present in court today. Even otherwise for the aforesaid reason, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i). (A.P.BHANGALE,J (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)