VERDICTUM.

IN
2025:BHC-AUG:2858-DB
(1)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 887 OF 2023

1. Musin Babulal Thengade,

Age : 37 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Malwati Road, Maharana Pratap Nagar,
Latur, Maharashtra ( Husband)

2. Babulal Allauddin Thengade,

Age : 57 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Malwati Road, Siddheswar Nagar,
Latur, Maharashtra. (Father-in-law)

3. Vasim Babulal Thengade,

Age : 33 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Malwati Road, Siddheswar Nagar,
Latur, Maharashtra. (Brother-in-law)

4. Asma @ KLaturr Vasim Thengade,

Age : 30 Years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Malwati Road, Siddheswar Nagar,
Latur, Maharashtra. (Sister-in-law)
..Applicants

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra,

Through Police Station Killari,
Latur.

2. Sow. Reshma Musin Thengade,

Age : 30 Years, Occ. Household,
R/o. At Post Nanand, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist. Latur, Maharashtra .. Respondents

…..
Shri. Gaurav L. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri. G. A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 State.
Ms. Namita Thole, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed)
….

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND

ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(2)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt

RESERVED ON : 08.01.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.01.2025

JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J):-

1. The applicants in the present matter have approached this Court

invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) initially praying to quash the

First Information Report No.0005 of 2023 dated 6.1.2023 registered

against them with police station Killari, District Latur and by way of

amendment for quashing the proceeding bearing Regular Criminal

Case No. 46 of 2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class Ausa, District Latur for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short, “IPC”). The informant is respondent No.2. The

applicants are related to respondent No.2 as under :-

Applicant No.1 is husband, applicant No.2 is father-in-law,

applicant No.3 is brother-in-law and applicant No.4- is sister-in-law.

Marriage of respondent No.2 with applicant No.1 was solemnized

somewhere in the year 2011. The couple is blessed with two children

from the wedlock. As per the version of respondent No.2, in the First

Information Report, for a period of around three years after the

marriage till the birth of their girl child, the relations were cordial as

in any normal family. She claims that thereafter applicant No.1-

husband started raising doubt about her character. She alleges that

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(3)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
applicant No.1 used to beat her under influence of liquor and also that

he would insist upon her to get a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from her

parents for the purpose of purchasing tools and apparatus for starting

plumbing business. It is alleged that in view of the said harassment

and ill-treatment her parents and relatives had been to her

matrimonial home to make her husband and in-laws understand that

they should treat respondent No.2 properly and live happily. It is

stated that three to four months after the said meeting, the behavior of

in-laws was good and she was treated well. She, however, alleges that

after the said period, the applicant nos.1 to 4 again started ill-

treatment and asked her to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- from her parents for

the aforesaid purpose. Respondent No.2 alleges that on 20.10.2019,

when she was at her parental house, applicant No.1 came there under

influence of liquor and again started beating and abusing her and had

demanded Rs. 2,00,000/-. She alleges that when her parents had

intervened he threatened that he would kill her if she does not bring

the amount from her parents and further that he would not cohabit

with her unless she brings the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. She has

further stated in the First Information Report that since her husband

did not take her back from her parental home, she was constrained to

lodge complaint with the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, Latur

against all the applicants and since the applicants did not come

forward for reconciliation, she had lodged the First Information

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(4)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
Report. The complaint before Women Grievance Redressal Cell is

stated to be made on 11.11.2022. The First Information Report is

lodged on 06.01.2023. As per the First Information Report, the last

wrongful act is dated 20.10.2019. Drawing our attention to these

dates, the learned Advocate for the applicants Mr. Gaurav Deshpande

contends that the First Information Report deserves to be quashed on

the ground that it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

He thereafter contends that even on merits, respondent No.2 has

failed to make out any case, the allegations are vague, general and

omnibus in nature. He states that the marriage has been solemnized

in the year 2011. Respondent No.2 has two children from the

marriage and all of a sudden, has lodged First Information Report on

06.01.2023. He claims that, respondent No.2 has taken resort to

criminal proceedings in order to settle matrimonial dispute with

applicant No.1.

2. Learned A.P.P. Shri. G.A. Kulkarni, has strenuously argued that

the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is a continuing offence and

therefore, the First Information Report cannot be quashed on the

ground of limitation. As regards merits, he contends that the

allegations are clear and specific and veracity of the same can be

adjudicated only at the time of trial. He would submit that for the

present the allegations in the First Information Report will have to be

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(5)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
taken to be true and correct and accepted on its face value. Advocate

Ms. Namita Thole, who is appointed to represent respondent No.2

advances submissions on similar lines to oppose the application.

3. Respondent No.2 to 4 are father-in-law, brother-in-law and

sister-in-law of respondent No.2. We find that all the allegations in

the First Information Report and other statements recorded under

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are against applicant

No.1-husband. There is one omnibus statement in the First

Information Report against applicant Nos. 2 to 4, stating that they had

demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- along with applicant No.1 and had abused

her, beaten her and did not offer food to her in order to coerce and

pressurize her to fulfill the demand. These allegations are clearly

general in nature. They are absolutely vague. The date, time or even

tentative period of the alleged wrong on the part of applicant No.2 to

4 is not mentioned. Apart from this, specific act is not attributed to

any of the applicant Nos. 2 to 4. The allegation, apart from being

vague, general and unspecific, is also omnibus. The said allegation is

clearly an attempt to implicate family members of the husband in

matrimonial dispute inter-se between wife and husband. The present

case offers another unfortunate example of wife resorting to over

implication. The allegation against applicant Nos. 2 to 4 is absolutely

meaningless and on the basis of such allegation it will not be just and

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(6)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
proper to force them to face the criminal prosecution. The application

deserves to be allowed with respect to applicant Nos. 2 to 4.

4. As regards the applicant No.1, the learned Advocate for the

applicants has only canvassed the point of limitation. The learned

Advocate for the applicants has strenuously urged that, the First

Information Report deserves to be quashed on the ground that it is

filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. He states that the

sentence for offence punishable under Section 498-A is three years

and therefore as per Section 468 (2)(c) the limitation for taking

cognizance of the offence will be three years. Referring to the First

Information Report, he states that the last alleged incident is dated

20.10.2019, the complaint to Women Grievance Redressal Cell made

on 11.11.2022, the First Information Report is lodged on 06.01.2023

and charge sheet is filed on 22.01.2023. He submits that cognizance

of the offences is taken after the prescribed period of limitation. He

states that limitation of three years should be counted from

20.10.2019, which is last alleged incident of ill-treatment. He submits

that even the complaint before the Women Grievance Redressal Cell is

filed beyond the period of three years. The First Information Report is

filed thereafter beyond the period of limitation. He, therefore,

submits that filing of charge sheet and taking cognizance of the

offence is also beyond prescribed period of limitation. Referring to

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(7)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
Section 468(1) he submits that since the provision is couched in

negative terms, it has to be treated as absolutely mandatory. With

respect to Section 473, he would submit that there is absolutely no

explanation for extension of time in order to entertain the matter

beyond the prescribed period of limitation and that in the facts of the

case, it will not be in the interest of justice to entertain the matter

beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. has referred to Section 472 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure to contend that the offence under Section

498-A of IPC is a continuing offence and, therefore, fresh period of

limitation begins to run every moment during which the offence

continues. He also submits that cognizance can be taken beyond the

prescribed period of limitation in view of Section 473. He argues that

Section 468 has to be read in conjunction with Section 473 and that

both these provisions are required to be interpreted harmoniously. As

regards extension of time, he submits that in case of offence under

Section 498-A it is always in the interest of justice to take cognizance

of the matter filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation since the

wife who is a victim of cruelty and harassment deserves sympathetic

consideration. He contends that often victims of offence under

Section 498-A do not immediately resort to lodging complaints/First

Information Reports with a view to save the marriage. As regards

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(8)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
interpretation of Section 473, he states that even in the absence of any

explanation for the delay, cognizance can be taken with respect to

prosecution initiated after prescribed period of limitation in the

interest of justice. He states that the two contingencies viz satisfaction

with respect to explanation offer for delay and interest of justice are

two separate considerations prescribed under Section 473 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure for extension of period of limitation. He

referred to word 'or' to contend that even if the delay is not explained,

period can be extended in the interest of justice. Both the learned

Advocates have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'be

Supreme Court in the matter of Arun Vyas Vs. Anita Vyas reported in

(1999 )Criminal Law Journal 3479 and Ramesh and other Vs. state of

Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) AIR SCW 1319.

6. Apart from this, the learned A.P.P. has also placed reliance on

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rupali Devi Vs.

State of Uttar pradesh reported in AIR OnLine (2019) SC 394.

7. Crime never dies is one of the basic principles of criminal law. In

other words right of state to prosecute an offender is not lost with

passage of time. Section 468 of the Cr. P. C. creates an exception to

this general principle of law. It categorizes certain offences based on

the punishment provided and fixes period of limitation for taking

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(9)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
cognizance of such offences. Limitation is prescribed for offences

punishable with imprisonment up to three years. Section 498-A is an

offence punishable with maximum sentence of three years. Section

468 of the Cr. P. C therefore, applies to Section 498-A of the IPC.

8. We accept the contention of learned A.P.P that Section 468(1) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be read in isolation and that it

has to be interpreted harmoniously with Sections 472 and 473 therein.

The said provision although couched in the negative term which

implies that it is mandatory, will have to be read in conjunction with

Section 473 of the Cr.P.C which enables a Court to take cognizance of

offence beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The period can be

extended under Section 473 on two grounds i.e. satisfactory

explanation for the delay or in the interest of justice. Since the

provision uses the term 'or', period can be extended even if one of the

conditions is fulfilled. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Section 468 and

473 from the Code will indicate that although the limitation is

prescribed for taking cognizance of certain offences, time can be

extended in cases where either the delay is properly explained or

when it is in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the matter

despite the same being barred by limitation. Section 468 of the Cr.P.C

is mandatory in nature in the sense that in case of delay, if proper

explanation is not offered or the Court does not find that cognizance

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(10)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
should be taken in the interest of justice despite the delay then

cognizance of the offence beyond the prescribed period of limitation

will be barred.

9. As regards Section 472 of the Cr. P. C, contention of the learned

A.P.P. that offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing

wrong will have to be accepted, but only with a rider. Although the

offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing wrong, it

would not mean that limitation would continue to run perennially.

The correct interpretation of the provision is provided in the matter of

Arun Vyas and another Vs. Anita Vyas (supra) which sates that in case

of offence under Section 498-A, a new starting point of limitation is

start on every occasion when the wrong is committed and the period

of limitation needs to be computed from the last such wrong. We may

profitably quote paragraph 13 of the said decision, which reads as

under :-

“ The essence of the offence in Section 498-A is

cruelty as defined in the explanation appended to that
section. It is a continuing offence and on each occasion on
which the respondent was subjected to cruelty, she would
have a new starting point of limitation. The last act of
cruelty was committed against the respondent, within the
meaning of the explanation, on October 13, 1988 when, on
the allegation made by the respondent in the complaint to
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, she was forced to

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(11)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
leave the matrimonial home. Having regard to the
provisions of Sections 469 and 472 the period of limitation
commenced for offences under Sections 406 and 498-A
from October 13, 1988 and ended on October 12, 1991.
But the charge sheet was filed on December 22, 1995,
therefore, it was clearly barred by limitation under Section
468(2)(c) Cr. P. C. ’’

10. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further stated in

paragraph No. 14 that in complaints under Section 498-A the wife

will invariably be oppressed, who is subjected to cruelty and,

therefore, Section 473 of the Cr. P.C should be construed liberally in

favour of wife. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also

cautioned that the words interest of justice employed in Section 473 of

the Cr. P. C. cannot mean in the interest of prosecution and the true

object of the provision is to advance the cause of justice by protecting

the oppressed and punishing the offender. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has also referred to its earlier judgment in the matter of Onkar

Radha Manohari (Smt) Vs. Venka Venkata Reddy reported in 1993

AIR SCW 3595 that while dealing with Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code, the Court should not only examine as to whether delay is

properly explained, but also as to whether it is necessary to entertain a

time barred matter in the interest of justice.

11. In the matter of Ramesh and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(12)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
(supra) the accused had raised a contention that the wife had left the

matrimonial home on 02.10.1997 and no further act of cruelty

continued thereafter. It was contended that the outer limit for taking

cognizance of the offence expired on 03.10.2000 after a lapse of three

years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has followed the principle laid

down in Arun Vyas and another Vs Anita Vyas (supra) to record that

the last act of cruelty becomes starting point of limitation in the

matter of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It

has also confirmed the view that cognizance of offence can be taken

beyond prescribed period of limitation in either of the two

contingencies viz delay being properly explained, or in the interest of

justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph No.8 of the

judgment that prosecution cannot be nullified at the threshold on the

ground of limitation and normally the matter should be left to the

discretion of the learned trial Court to decide as to whether

cognizance of the offence should be taken after the limitation

prescribed has expired.

12. As regards the judgment in the matter of Rupali Devi Vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh AIR ONLINE (2019) SC 394 relied upon by the

learned A.P.P., the principal dispute was with respect to territorial

jurisdiction of a Court while dealing with offence under Section 498-

A of the Indian Penal Code. The question was, when a wife is forced

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(13)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
to leave her matrimonial home and resides with her parents, the Court

having jurisdiction over the place of residence of wife will have

jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A of

the Indian Penal Code will have the territorial jurisdiction or not. In

that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph No. 14

of the judgment as under :-

14. “Cruelty” which is the crux of the offence under Section

498-A IPC is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary to mean
“The intentional and malicious infliction of mental or
physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human;
abusive treatment; outrage(Abuse, inhuman treatment,
indignity)”. Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty.
The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts
on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental
stress and trauma of being driven away from the
matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the
same home for fear of being illtreated are aspects that
cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the
expression “ cruelty” appearing in Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code. The emotional distress or physiological
effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to
continue to traumatize the wife even after she leaves the
matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home.
Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the
matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not
occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the
mental trauma and the psychological distress cause by the
acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that
had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(14)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at
the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical
cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would
continue in the parental home even though there may not
be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place. ”

13. These observations have been made in the context of

territorial jurisdiction. The judgment does not deal with the

aspect of limitation. Provisions of Sections 468, 472 and 473 of

the Cr. P.C did not fall for consideration in this case. As against

this in the cases of Arun Vyas and another Vs Anita Vyas (supra) and

Ramesh and other Vs. state of Tamil Nadu (supra) , the question

of limitation was directly involved and the same is answered

referring to the relevant statutory provisions. It is settled legal

principle that judgments of the Courts have to be interpreted in

the backdrop of facts of the particular case. Ratio of a case has to

be understood and appreciated in the backdrop of the facts in

which the judgment is delivered. The law laid down in the

judgment cannot be divorced from the facts of the case in which it

is delivered. A judgment cannot be interpreted like a statute. It

cannot be applied uniformly every where like Euclid’s theorems of

geometry. Therefore, while dealing with aforesaid three

judgments cited during the course of hearing, we are of the

considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the matters of Arun

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(15)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
Vyas and Ramesh which directly deal with the question of

limitation will have to be accepted. The judgment in the matter

of Rupali Devi is relating to territorial jurisdiction of a Court to

deal with offetnce under Section 498-A of the IPC.

14. In the light of above, we are of the opinion that limitation

for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC shall

commence from the last act of cruelty. Offence under Section

498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence implies that each act of

cruelty would offer new starting point of limitation. Limitation

for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for

indefinite period. Such interpretation will render Section 468 of

the Cr. P.C. nugatory or otiose for the purpose of Section 498-A of

the Indian Penal Code which does not appear to be the intention

of legislature. Had there been intention to exclude Section 498-A

of the IPC from the sweep of Section 468 of the Cr. P.C express

provision could have been made for the said purpose.

15. We have noticed that the last incident narrated in the First

Information Report is dated 20.10.2019. Within a period of few months

thereafter i.e. from March 2020 lock-down of Pandemic of Covid-19 was

imposed. Taking note of the situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

extended the limitation for filing of cases from time to time finally up to

June 2022. We may take judicial note of the fact that from March 2020 till

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(16)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
about second wave of Covid-19 pandemic which was April/May 2021, the

situation was very grim, thereafter gradually situation got eased out.

However, as stated above, limitation for filing all sort of the cases was

extended by Hon'ble Supreme Court up to June 2022. Having regard to the

facts of the present case, i.e. allegation by the wife regarding illtreatment

including abuses and physical act of beating on the part of the husband for

demand of dowry, the Covid-19 situation and the principles laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the case is made out

for extension of time for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 473

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are of the opinion that it would be in

the interest of justice that cognizance of the matter should be taken

although the same is barred by limitation. Normally we would have

remitted the matter to learned Magistrate to decide the aspect of the

limitation, however, having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are of the

opinion that it will not be necessary to remit the matter back to the learned

Magistrate. We should also mention that the last alleged incident is dated

20.10.2019 and respondent No.2 had approached the Women Grievance

Redressal Cell by filing complaint on 11.11.2022 and had thereafter lodged

the First Information Report on 06.01.2023. The charge sheet is filed on

29.01.2023. Thus, the delay that is caused in the matter is less than one

month if we consider the date of approaching Women Grievance Redressal

Cell and around two and half months when we consider the date of lodging

of First Information Report. Even if we consider the date of charge sheet,

the delay is only three months and ten days. Having regard to the extent of

delay and Covid-19 situation coupled with principles laid down by the

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(17)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt
Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the matter need not be

remitted to the learned Magistrate to decide the issue of limitation. The

applicant No.1 has failed to make out any case for interference. We do not

deem it appropriate to quash the First Information Report against the

applicant No.1.

16. We clarify that observations made in the present judgment are only

for the purpose of deciding as to whether case for quashing of First

Information Report has been made out or not within the narrow scope of

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. We have not observed anything with respect to

veracity or correctness of the allegations levelled against applicant No.1. The

same shall be decided by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.

Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

(i) The application is rejected as against the applicant No.1 Musin

Babulal Thengade.

(ii) The application is allowed with respect to applicant Nos. 2 to 4

namely applicant No.2 Babulal Allauddin Thengade, applicant
No.3 Vasim Babulal Thengade, applicant No.4 Asma @ Klaturr
Vasim Thengade and First Information Report No. 0005 of 2023
dated 6.1.2023 registered against them with police station
Killari, District Latur and Regular Criminal Case No. 46 of 2023
pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ausa,
District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code are quashed against them.

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::

 VERDICTUM.IN
(18)
Cri.Appln. No. 887-2023.odt

(iii) The fee payable to the learned Advocate appointed for

represent respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs. 7,000/-(Rupees
Seven Thousand only)

(ROHIT W. JOSHI) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )

JUDGE JUDGE

Y.S. Kulkarni

::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2025 10:36:52 :::