Bombay High Court

SHIVAJI DATTATRAY YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The revision application was disposed of on the ground that the dispute had been settled by consent terms.

Summary

The applicant, Shivaji Dattatray Yadav, filed a criminal revision application against the State of Maharashtra and a second respondent. The parties entered into consent terms on 18 June 2026, wherein the applicant paid the full amount claimed by the second respondent, who confirmed receipt and expressed no desire to continue the dispute. The court noted that the second respondent was present and represented by a legal aid counsel. Relying on the settlement, the court disposed of the revision application and all related interim applications. No further adjudication on the merits was made.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal revision application should be entertained in view of the parties' settlement through consent terms

Subjects

settlement
consent terms
criminal revision
disposal
interim applications

Judgment

                                                                  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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…