Bombay High Court
PRAKASH SHESHRAO ATOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court allowed the quashment of the criminal proceedings, finding the settlement and lack of objection by informants sufficient.
Summary
Petitioner Prakash Atole and applicant Dattatraya Atole filed a criminal writ petition and a criminal application respectively, seeking quashment of proceedings against them by the State of Maharashtra. Both parties claimed an amicable settlement and filed affidavits indicating that the informants had no objection to the quashment. The State opposed, arguing that the nature of the offences made them non‑compoundable. The Court observed that the offences were personal in nature and, with the informants’ consent, there was no evidentiary basis to continue the trial. Consequently, the Court allowed both the writ petition and the application, subject to the parties depositing a cost of Rs.10,000 each with the Bar Library.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for personal offences can be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement and informants' consent.
- Whether the nature of the offences precludes compounding and thus bars quashment.
Subjects
- quashment of criminal proceedings
- compounding of offences
- settlement
- personal offences
- cost deposit
- High Court
- Aurangabad
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42690-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
Checking your session…