Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

DATTATRAYA BHIMRAO ATOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings, allowing the writ petition and the application, on the ground of settlement and lack of objection by the informants.

Summary

Petitioner Prakash Sheshrao Atole and applicant Dattatraya Bhimrao Atole filed a criminal writ petition and a criminal application respectively, seeking quashment of pending criminal proceedings against them. Both parties claimed an amicable settlement and filed affidavits indicating that the informants had no objection to the quashment. The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed, arguing that the nature of the offences was not compoundable. The Court observed that the offences were personal in nature and, with the informants’ consent, there was no evidentiary basis to continue the trials. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and the application, ordering each party to deposit Rs.10,000 as costs to the Bar Library.

Issues considered

  • Whether criminal proceedings for personal offences can be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement when the offences are not compoundable.
  • Whether the Court may order the parties to deposit costs in lieu of the settlement.

Subjects

  • settlement
  • compromise
  • quashment of criminal proceedings
  • personal offence
  • non-compoundable offence
  • costs
  • High Court
  • writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42693-DB
                                                                            45-CRWP-375-24.odt



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 375 OF 2024

          Prakash Sheshrao Atole                                 ..PETITIONER
                VERSUS
          State of Maharashtra and Another                       ..RESPONDENTS

                        WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2333 OF 2023

          Dattatraya Bhimrao Atole                               ..APPLICANT
                VERSUS
          State of Maharashtra and Another                       ..RESPONDENTS

                                                ....
          Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for petitioner in WP/375/24 and for respondent
          no2. in APPLN/2333/23
          Mr. A.R. Kale, Addl.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State
          Mr. V.S. Kadam, Advocate h/f Mr.T.M. Tandale, Advocate for respondent no.2
          in WP/375/24 and for applicant in APPLN/2333/23
                                                ....

                                                      CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
                                                      DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026

          PER COURT :

          1.         Criminal Application No. 2333 of 2023 is not on board. Upon

          being mentioned taken on board.


          2.         Learned counsel for both the sides, on instructions, submit that the

          parties have settled the dispute amicably and accordingly affidavits are filed

          on record. They also submit that counter reports are filed and in view of such

          compromise, both, the petition and application for quashment of proceedings



                                             1 / 2
                                                                   45-CRWP-375-24.odt



be allowed.     Learned counsel, make voluntary statement to pay cost

Rs.10,000/- in each case, to High Court Bar Library.


3.         Learned A.P.P. opposed to grant of any relief to the petitioner and

applicant mentioning that having regard to the nature of offence, it is not a

case of compounding of the same.


4.         The offences sought to be quashed are personal in nature. Once

the informants in both the cases have recorded no objection for quashment of

the proceeding against each other, offence would be required to be quashed.

Even if such cases are sent for trial, for want of support by witnesses, the

result would be obvious.


5.         Having regard to overall facts of the case, the criminal writ petition

and criminal application could be allowed.         As voluntarily undertaken,

petitioner and applicant in both the matters to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

Ten Thousand) each, with the Advocates’ Association’s Bar Library, High

Court, Bench at Aurangabad.


6.         In view of above, the criminal writ petition stands allowed in terms

of prayer clause (B) and criminal application standz allowed in terms of

prayer clauses [C] and [CC]. Amount so agreed be deposited within a period

of two weeks.



                                                   ( R.M. JOSHI, J. )
SSD


                                   2 / 2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.