High Court · 2025
Facts
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odtCorrection has been carried out in view of speaking to minutes order dated 16.10.2025.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCriminal Application No. 2919 Of 20241.Shakilabee w/o Abdul KadarAge : 79 years, Occu.: Household,R/o Devgaon Kusli, Tq. Badnapur,Dist. Jalna.2.Jahedabee w/o Sk. Lal,Age : 73 years, Occu.: Household,R/o Devgaon Kusli, Tq. Badnapur,Dist. Jalna. .. Applicants Versus1.The State of MaharashtraCopy to be served on thePublic Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 2.Latabai w/o Dnyaneshwar JadhavAge : 46 years, Occu.: Agril.,R/o Devgaon Kusli, Tq. Badnapur,Dist. Jalna. .. Respondents****** Mr. Sohail Subhedar holding for Mr. N.S. Ghanekar,Advocate for the Applicants.* Mr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Respondent No. 1.* Mr. Sanket S. Palnitkar,Advocate for Respondent No. 2.***** CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ.. Date Of Reserving the Order : 6th October 2025 Date Of Pronouncing the Order : 13th October 2025[1] 58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odtORDER [ Per Mehroz K. Pathan, J. ] :1.The application has filed by the Applicants who are theaccused convicted in Sessions Case by the learned Special Court inSpecial Case No.14/2001 for quashing and setting aside thejudgment and order dated 11.06.2003 on the ground that thecomplainant/Latabai in the said crime and the ApplicantNo.1/Shakilabee and Applicant No.2/Jahedabee have settled thedispute. 2.This Court had issued the notice to the Respondents as wellas the learned APP waived service on behalf of the StateGovernment. The matter was thereafter heard and vide orderdated 10.09.2025, this Court had considered the presentapplication for hearing. This Court has taken note of the fact thatthe Respondent No.2/Complainant was paid an amount ofRs.6250/- in 2002 under the scheme to compensate the membersof the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, against whom theatrocities were alleged. The learned APP thus took an objectionthat the compromise shall not be accepted after the Applicantshave already been convicted for the said offences under theAtrocities Act. 3.It was also noticed in the order dated 10.09.2025 that theRespondent No.2/Complainant would voluntarily deposit theamount of Rs.6250/- which she has received from the Governmentand for the reasons in the settlement deed, she wants to giveconsent for the quashment of the conviction. This Court allowedthe Respondent No.2 to deposit the said amount with the SocialJustice Department within a period of two weeks and to produce a[2] 58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odtcopy of the receipt of such deposit. 4.The matter was thereafter listed before this court on01.10.2025. The statement was made before this Court that theRespondent No.2/Complainant – Latabai had deposited theamount of Rs.6250/- as directed by this Court vide order dated10.09.2025. However as the parties were not present before thisCourt, the Counsels were directed to keep the parties before thisCourt. The parties are thus, present before this Court today,confirming that they have arrived at a settlement and for thereasons stated in the application that the Applicants are old agedladies and that the criminal proceedings arise out of trivial disputebetween them and that with intervention of the neighbours andrespectable persons of the vicinity, they have decided to settle thedispute amongst themselves. The Respondent No.2 hascategorically made statement that she has no objection forquashment of the proceeding. 5.The Respondent No.2 was personally present before thisCourt and her identification particulars was verified by this Courtby putting questions to her. Learned Counsel for the RespondentNo.2 appearing on her behalf also identified her and produces aphotocopy of the Aadhar Card on record which is marked asdocument ‘X’ for identification. The Applicants and Respondentwere present before this Court and after interaction with them itwas found that they were old aged ladies and wanted to settle theirdisputes permanently so that they can live amicably in theneighborhood. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgmentreported in Ramgopal and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,[3] 58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odt(2022) 14 SCC 531, has held that the powers under Section 482can be exercised, even to quash the conviction of the accusedpersons, even at the appellate stage by the Appellate Court. TheHon’ble Supreme Court has held that the inherent powers of theHigh Court under Section 482, is to be exercised, to see that thereis no abuse of process of law. 6.The perusal of the judgment of the conviction would showthat the Applicants/accused persons have abused the Complainantin the name of her caste on a trivial issue and have thereafterattempted to push the Complainant in the well and as such theApplicants were prosecuted for committing to attempt to murderof the Complainant and under the relevant Section 3(i)(x) of theScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. The Applicants were also charged for an offence under Section323 of the Indian Penal Code. The perusal of the entire recordwould show that there was hardly any injuries on the person ofthe Complainant/victim, which would make the offence fall underthe heinous or grievous offence category. 7.The learned APP had opposed the quashing of the proceedingafter the conviction of the Appellants on the ground of settlementin a non-compoundable offence. He submits that the Full Bench ofthis Court in the judgment in Maya Sanjay Khandare and AnotherVs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 (1) Mh.L.J. 613, has held that postconviction compromise is not sufficient to set aside the convictionin non-compoundable offence. This Court also had an occasion todeal with identical application for quashing of the settlement afterthe conviction of the Appellants, in Criminal Appeal No.568/2011[4] 58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odtin the matter of Vijay Karbhari Golhar and Others Vs. State ofMaharashtra and connected appeals. 8.This Court has found that after the Full Bench decision inMaya Sanjay Khandare (supra), the Apex Court had pronouncedjudgment dated 29.09.2021 in Ramgopal (supra), which wasfurther affirmed by this Court in Ramawatar Vs. State of MadhyaPradesh, AIR 2021 SC 5228 by the three Judges Bench of theApex court, wherein it was laid down as under :“10.So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem tooutrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of RamGopal andAnr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Courtconsisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted withan identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that thejurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be construed as aproscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court underArticle 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts underSection 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising theextraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to docomplete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be,after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that thevictim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quashproceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional / inherent powers.” 9.This Court in the aforesaid judgment was therefore pleasedto follow Apex Court decision in Ramgopal and Ramawatar(supra), which was consistently followed by the Bombay HighCourt in various other subsequent matters. The Court hastherefore set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed on 19.09.2011 in theSessions Case No.29/2009 and likewise in other identical appeals. 10.We have considered the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’bleApex Court in Ramgopal (supra) which came to be followed by[5]
Legal Reasoning
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odtthree Judges Bench of this Court in Ramawatar (supra) and thejudgment of the Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No.568/2011.We do not find any reason to take a different view, than that takenby the Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal and the otherconnected appeals. We are therefore, satisfied that the powersunder Section 482 are to be exercised in criminal proceedinginvolving non-heinous offences and the proceedings can beannulled irrespective of the fact that the trial has already beenconcluded or the appeal stands dismissed against the conviction.We also interacted with the Applicants and the Complainant whoare old aged ladies. The incident has occurred more than 24 yearsago and the incident was a fallout of a trivial issue, involvingallegations of an attempt to push the complainant into the well,abusing her in the name of her caste. In our considered opinion,we do not find the offence to be a heinous offence, which involves apublic element. Looking to the advanced age of the Applicants andthe Complainant who are present before this Court and with arequest to quash the proceeding so that they can live amicably inthe vicinity as neighbors, we intend to quash the conviction of theApplicants in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. byaccepting their compromise as stated in the application. Hence thefollowing order : ORDERa)The judgment and order dated 11.06.2003 passed by thelearned Sessions Court, Jalna in Special Case No.14/2001 ishereby quashed and set aside. b)The Criminal Application is allowed in the above terms and[6]
Decision
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odtdisposed of with no order as to costs. [ MEHROZ K. PATHAN ] [ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] JUDGE JUDGENajeeb..[7]