Bombay High Court
WP/291/2023 of ARTH MUNISH DEPURI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS on 12 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 67 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 291 OF 2023 Arth Munish Depuri & others ….Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents Mr. S. V. Adwant, Advocate for the Petitioners Ms. R. P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
67 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 291 OF 2023
Arth Munish Depuri & others
….Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others
…..Respondents
Mr. S. V. Adwant, Advocate for the Petitioners Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for the State.
Mr. N. Y. Kingaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 12th OCTOBER, 2026.
PER COURT :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned Counsel for both sides make a statement that the terms of compromise are on record. The learned Registrar (Judicial) has verified the terms of compromise. Learned Counsel for both sides voluntarily make a statement, on instructions, that the Petitioners collectively and Respondent No. 2 undertake to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with the Advocates' Association of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad.
2. The report of the learned Registrar (Judicial) indicates that he has verified the terms of compromise as well as the willingness of the parties except Petitioner No. 4, to abide by the compromise. Learned
Counsel for Petitioners drew attention of the Court to the consent terms being separately executed by the Petitioner No. 4. According to him, once Respondent records no objection to allow Petition, there is no impediment to do so. Learned Advocate for the contesting Respondent confirms the fact of recording of no objection by contesting Respondent to allowing the petition.
3. Learned APP opposes allowing the petition by contending that the nature of the offence is not strictly personal.
4. Considering the fact that parties have settled the dispute, one can imagine the outcome of the trial, if they are directed to undergo trial. In any case, having regard to the nature of offence, it cannot be said that compromise would be wholly impermissible. This Court, therefore, finds no substance in objection recorded by prosecutor.
5. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.
6. As undertaken by learned Counsel for both sides, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each be deposited with the Advocates’ Association of
Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, within a period of four weeks from today. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
dyb