Bombay High Court

DNYANESHWAR KACHARU TODMALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed as the earlier order and compensation suffice and no direction for prosecution of the police officers is warranted.

Summary

Petitioner Dnyaneswar Kacharu Todmal filed a criminal writ petition seeking to quash a communication dated 15 June 2020 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, and to obtain sanction for prosecuting the police officers involved, based on his earlier application dated 30 April 2020. The High Court had previously, on 29 November 2019, observed that no prosecution of the police officers was warranted and that a compensation of Rs. 25,000 had been paid, which it deemed sufficient. The petitioner argued that the earlier observation was merely an opinion and that Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not bar registration of an offence against the officers. The Court examined the affidavit of the respondent, noting that the petitioner's request for sanction had already been decided through the impugned communication, and found no perversity in that communication. Consequently, the Court held that nothing remained to be granted and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for prosecution of police officers despite the Court's earlier observation.
Whether Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars the registration of an offence against the police officers in the present circumstances.
Whether the communication dated 15 June 2020 is perverse and liable to be quashed.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 197

Subjects

criminal prosecution
police officers
sanction
Section 197
compensation
quashing of communication
writ petition

Judgment

                                   (1)
                                                     12 Cri.WP-572.2021.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
      12 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 572 OF 2021

               DNYANESHWAR KACHARU TODMAL
                         VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                    …
              Mr. P.R. Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
                             ...
                   CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                           VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                   DATED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2026.

Per Court :

1.   Heard.

2.   The petition is filed for quashing of communication dated

15.06.2020, issued by respondent No.1 Superintendent of

Police, Ahmednagar and also for granting sanction for

petitioner    to   initiate   criminal     prosecution     against     the

concerned     police   officers   as     per   his   application     dated

30.04.2020. However, under order dated 29 th November 2019,

this Court had, in clear terms, opined that considering the fact

of present matter, no further action like direction for

prosecution of police officers, was warranted and only giving of

compensation would suffice the purpose. As such, in terms of

these clear observations by this Court, no direction for the

prosecution of police officers as prayed by the petitioner, is

warranted. Compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is already paid to
                                (2)
                                              12 Cri.WP-572.2021.odt
the petitioner, and therefore, nothing is remained in this

petition.

3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner, by pointing out some

portion of the aforesaid order submits that it was open for the

petitioner to take appropriate steps for the prosecution.

However, it is only an opinion expressed by the Court at the

relevant time. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits

that there is no bar under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for

registration of offence against the concerned police officers.

4.    Even otherwise also, as per the affidavit filed by the

respondent, it appears that the petitioner’s application for

sanction has already been decided through the impugned

communication dated 15.06.2020, and therefore, no perversity

is found in the impugned communication. As such, we find

that nothing survives in this petition and it stands disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)               (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                  JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…