- 1 - criappln111.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 935 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2023 Dhanraj Narsinghdas Pallod ….Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents ….. Ms. A. P. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT : 1. Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that order dated 05.01.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur, below Exhibit 9 in RCC No. 1481/2021 indicates that the victim has compromised the issue with the Applicant herein. According to her, it is only for the reason that the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable, no further order was passed. She further argues that the dispute in question is personal in nature and as such in view of compromise, there is no impediment in allowing the application. She places reliance on order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 28.01.2025 in Criminal Application No. 93/2023 quashing the proceeding in Crime No. 535/2021. She - 2 - criappln111.23.odt further submits that supplementary statement recorded by the investigating agency supports the case of the Applicant about compromise between the parties. 2. Learned APP opposed the application by contending that this is not the only crime against the present Applicant and he is involved in similar 4 crimes. It is his submission that in such circumstances, offence cannot be considered against an individual but against the society at large. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the parties have arrived at settlement. This is appearing from the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 05.01.2022. Even if it is accepted that there are multiple offences registered against the present Applicant, once the victim has recorded supplementary statement mentioning that he has already received the amount, one can imagine the fate of the trial if the trial is required to be conducted. Needless to say that the offence in question is against in individual, who does not wish to proceed further against the Applicant. A such, this Court finds no justification in not allowing the application. - 3 - criappln111.23.odt 4. In view of the above, application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘B1’. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb