Bombay High Court

SANDEEP ASARAM BHAKAD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court allowed the petition, permitting the compromise and directing the parties to deposit Rs 10,000 with the Bar Association Library.

Summary

The petitioners, Sandeep Asaram Bhakad and others, filed a criminal writ petition seeking relief, while the informant‑victim (Respondent No. 2) and the State opposed it. Both parties agreed to a compromise, offering to deposit Rs 10,000 with the High Court Bar Association Library in Aurangabad. The State argued that the nature of the alleged offence precluded any relief. The Court examined whether a voluntary settlement in a matrimonial dispute could be permitted despite the criminal nature of the case. Finding the compromise genuine and in the parties’ interest, the Court allowed the petition, subject to the stipulated deposit within two weeks.

Issues considered

Whether a compromise between parties can be permitted in a criminal writ petition involving a matrimonial dispute
Whether the nature of the alleged offence bars the grant of relief

Subjects

compromise
criminal writ petition
matrimonial dispute
settlement
High Court of Bombay
deposit

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41783-DB
                                                                      929-WP-372-2023.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         929 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 372 OF 2023

                               Sandeep Asaram Bhakad And Others
                                             Versus
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Another

          Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for the Petitioners
          Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent No. 1
          Mr. U. S. Mote, Advocate for Respondent No. 2

                                                           CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                           DATE  :SEPTEMBER 10, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.             Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for

          Respondent No. 2/Informant victim jointly request for allowing the Petition

          in view of the compromise took place between the parties. They also

          volunteers to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- to the High Court Bar Association

          Library, Aurangabad.


          2.             Learned APP opposed grant of any relief to the Petitioners by

          referring to the nature of offence and the allegations made against the

          Petitioners.


          3.             Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is

          matrimonial, this Court, in the interest of parties, accept the terms. The

          settlement seems to be voluntary. In the circumstances, this Court finds no

          justification not to allow the Petition. Hence, Petition stands allowed in


                                             Page 1 of 2
                                                             929-WP-372-2023.odt



terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ subject to Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 jointly

deposit sum of Rs.10,000/- with Library, Advocates Association of High

Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad within two weeks from today.


                                                     (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                  Page 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…