(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 29th 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

(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 29th 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