High Court
Legal Reasoning
{7} criapel568-11.docheinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no suchbenefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court inNarinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3 and LaxmiNarayan (Supra).14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences whichinvolve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social andmoral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning publicpolicy, cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or groups only,for such offences have the potential to impact the society at large.Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would notonly send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord anundue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders,who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, socialboycotts, bribes or other dubious means. It is well said that “let noguilty man escape, if it can be avoided.”18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that the plenary jurisdiction ofthis Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipsofacto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It isalso noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akinto Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court toabrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdictionexercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces thisCourt with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, soas to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be givento the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justicesystem, which is grounded on the sublime philosophy of maintenanceof peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing anindividual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C.where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the {8} criapel568-11.docparties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutoryframework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Courtunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds ofSection 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers ofwide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context ofquashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature andeffect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousnessof the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between theaccused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, priorto and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or otherrelevant considerations.”12.The decision in “Ramgopal” (supra) was affirmed by threejudges bench of the Apex Court in “Ramawatar” (supra),observing that;9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, weare of the opinion that two questions fall for our consideration in thepresent appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing ofcriminal proceedings arising out of a ‘non compoundable offence? Ifyes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended tooffences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act? 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 ofRamGopal and Anr V. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a twoJudge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI& Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question.Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdictionof a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a {9} criapel568-11.docproscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in thisCourt under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of theHigh Courts under Section 482Cr.P.C. It was further held that thetouchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore,this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having givendue regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim /complainant has willingly entered into a settlement / compromise, canquash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional /inherent powers. 11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminalproceedings involving non heinous offences or offences which arepredominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage ofthe proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however,being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt toescape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise throughbrute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means,cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post conviction,the Courts should, interalia, carefully examine the fashion in whichthe compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of theaccused before and after the incident in question. While concluding,the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held: “19… Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wideamplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context ofquashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Natureand effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature ofcompromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv)Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after theoccurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevantconsiderations.” 12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of {10} criapel568-11.docthis Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of thisCourt under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminalproceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between thecomplainant/victim and the accused. 13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post convictionmatters only where an appeal is pending before one or the otherJudicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction doesnot attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remediesand the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency oflegal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sinequanon toinvolve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice.Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of alllegal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of acompromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitatedto prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such asettlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicionabout its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of theseextraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow heartedagreements between the accused and the victim but to do completejustice by effecting genuine settlement(s).” 13.Though one of us (N. B. Suryawanshi, J.) is a party to theFull Bench judgment in “Maya Sanjay Khandare” (supra),however, in terms of the jurisprudence of precedents as also interms of the imperatives of Article 141 of the Constitution ofIndia, we are bound to follow the Apex Court decisions in“Ramgopal” and “Ramawatar” (supra).14.Decisions in “Ramgopal” and “Ramawatar” (supra) are {11} criapel568-11.docconsistently followed by this Court in “Sandeep V/s State ofMaharashtra” MANU /MH /4081 /2022; “Baburao ManikRenge V/s State of Maharashtra” MANU/MH/1432/2022;Criminal Application No. 2546 of 2023 (Matin GaggarShaikh V/s State of Maharashtra and Another); CriminalApplication No. 865 of 2020 (Mahebob Khan s/o AzamtKhan and Others V/s State of Maharashtra and Another);Criminal Application No. 738 of 2022 (Bharat RamsinghPawar and Another V/s State of Maharashtra andAnother).15.Admittedly, in the present matters, the incident inquestion, which led to prosecution of members of two groups,has occurred due to political rivalry. In the said incident,members of both the parties were injured. The injuries sufferedby both the parties do not show any metal depravity orcommission of offence of serious nature and this cannot be saidto be an offence against the society. The incident has occurredmore than 17 years ago and no untoward incident has transpiredbetween the parties either before or after the purported offence,despite parties residing in the same village. Now the parties haveamicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have filedjoint compromise purshis verified before the Registrar (Judicial).Therefore, present case is squarely covered by the observations {12} criapel568-11.docin “Ramgopal” and “Ramawatar” (supra).16.We find that the parties have willingly entered intosettlement and the compromise arrived at is genuine. In thisview of the matter, to secure ends of justice, we are inclined toaccept the compromise entered into between the parties. We areof the considered view that, this is a fit case to invoke powersunder section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quashconviction of Appellants in both the Appeals, by accepting theircompromise. Hence, the following order:ORDERI.Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 2011 is allowed. Judgment andorder of conviction passed by learned Additional SessionsJudge, Beed on 19th September, 2011 in Sessions Case No.29 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside.II.Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2011 is allowed. Judgment andorder of conviction passed by learned Additional SessionsJudge, Beed on 19th September, 2011 in Sessions Case No.41 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside.III.The fine amount deposited by the Appellants in both theseAppeals shall be confiscated to the Government.IV.Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 2011 to deposit {13} criapel568-11.doccost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and Appellantsin Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2011 to deposit cost ofRs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) within three weeksfrom the date of uploading of this order, which should begiven to the three Members Committee consisting of thePresident of Bar Association, High Court Bench atAurangabad, Dr. Varale, Medical Officer, MedicalDispensary, High Court Bench at Aurangabad and Registrar(Adm) of the High Court Bench at Aurangabad, which isalready constituted. The said Committee to utilize the saidamount for Medical Dispensary of High Court, Bench atAurangabad.V.In view of this order, Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2019 filedfor enhancement is disposed of.VI.List the matters for compliance on 25th September, 2025. [ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGEJUDGE drp/criapel568-11.doc
Arguments
{1} criapel568-11.docdrpIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.568 OF 2011Vijay Karbhari Golhar and OthersAPPELLANTSVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT.......Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vishal Chavanand Mr. Ubaid Hashmi i/b Mr. Devang Deshmukh, Advocate forthe AppellantMr. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondent - State ....…ANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.101 OF 2019Bhausaheb Nanasaheb Latpate APPELLANTVERSUSVijay Karbhari Golhar and Others RESPONDENTS.......Mr. Satej Jadhav, Advocate for the AppellantMr. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondent - State Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vishal Chavanand Mr. Ubaid Hashmi i/b Mr. Devang Deshmukh, Advocate forthe Respondents No. 1 to 8.......ANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.579 OF 2011Bhausaheb Nanasaheb Latpate and Others APPELLANTSVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT.......Mr. Satej Jadhav, Advocate for the AppellantMr. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondent - State ....…ANDCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2524 OF 2025IN {2} criapel568-11.docCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.579 OF 2011WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 568 OF 2011Bhausaheb Nanasaheb Latpate & Others APPLICANTSANDVijay Karbhari Golhar and Others APPLICANTSVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT.......Mr. Satej Jadhav, Advocate for the AppellantMr. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondent - State ....... [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. J.] DATE : 12 th AUGUST, 2025 ORDER :1.Political rivalry between two groups in the village hasresulted into filing cross complaints against each other.Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 2011 were prosecutedin Sessions Case No. 29 of 2009 and are convicted for offencepunishable under section 148, 324, 326, 323 read with 149 of theIndian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RigorousImprisonment for 3 years along with fine.2.Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2011 wereprosecuted in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2009 and are convicted foroffence punishable under section 147, 148, 324, read with 149 ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous {3} criapel568-11.docImprisonment for 2 years with fine.3.Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2019 is filed by Appellants inCriminal Appeal No. 579 of 2011 seeking enhancement ofsentence of 3 years RI imposed on Appellants in Criminal AppealNo. 568 of 2011.4.At the time of final hearing of these appeals, Appellants inboth these appeals have jointly filed Criminal Application No.2524 of 2025 in the form of joint compromise purshis statingthat, they have amicably settled their dispute with theintervention of respected persons in the society and village. Theyhave realized the drawbacks of fighting over trivial issues forsuch a long period and better sense has prevailed on them andthey have decided to live in peace and harmony, as they used tolive before occurrence of the incident in question. Theyundertake to live like brothers and maintain cordial relationsamong them. They have, therefore, prayed that Criminal AppealsNo. 568 of 2011 and 579 of 2011 be allowed, in view of the jointpurshis and the judgments and orders of conviction passedagainst them, be quashed and set aside.5.Appellants in both these Appeals were present in the Court.They are identified by their respective Advocates. Theyreiterated the submissions made in the joint compromise purshis, {4} criapel568-11.docwhich is verified before the learned Registrar (Judicial). Theyconfirmed that the cross complaints were filed by them againsteach other due to the political rivalry and dispute which arousedue the Sarpanch election. Prior to the incident in question, theywere residing happily in the village and had good relations witheach other. They further submitted that the incident in questionhas happened because of misunderstanding. Now, they havesettled their dispute and they undertake to live together happilywithout indulging into any criminal activity. 6.Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh andlearned Advocate Mr. Satej Jadhav, appearing for Appellants inthese Appeals, submit that though after full fledged trial beforelearned Additional Sessions Judge, the Appellants are convicted,yet, now during the pendency of the Appeals, due to interventionof the elderly persons and relatives, compromise has takenplace. The joint purshis has been filed by the parties stating thatthey want to keep good relations with each other in future. Byrelying on “Ramawatar V/s State of Madhya Pradesh” AIR2021 SC 5228, they submit that, in view of the amicablesettlement of the dispute between the parties and consideringthe fact that the incident has occurred due to political rivalry, thisCourt may allow the Appeals. {5} criapel568-11.doc7.Learned APP, by relying on the Full Bench decision of thisCourt in “Maya Sanjay Khandare and Another V/s State ofMaharashtra” 2021 (1) Mh.L.J. 613, to which one of us (N. B.Suryawanshi, J.) is a party, strenuously opposed the Applicationsubmitting that, Full Bench has held that, once conviction isrecorded by the Trial Court, it cannot be set aside on the basis ofcompromise, at the Appellate stage. He, therefore, prayed thatthe Application may be dismissed and the Appeals may bedecided on merit.8.Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and thelearned APP at length, perused the record and citations reliedupon by the respective parties.9.Before coming to the facts of the present matter, we woulddeal with the legal position on the point whether on the basis ofcompromise post conviction, the conviction can be set aside.10.Full Bench of this Court in “Maya Sanjay Khandare”(supra), decided on 5th January, 2021, held that, post convictioncompromise is not sufficient to set aside conviction in noncompoundable offence. There is no power conferred by the Codeeither on appellate Court / revisional Court to acquit an accusedconvicted for commission of a non compoundable offence, onlyon the ground that compromise has been entered into between {6} criapel568-11.docthe convict and the informant / accused. It is further held that, “Itis only in rarest of rare cases that Court may quash criminalproceedings post conviction for a non compoundable offence onsettlement between convict and informant / complainant”.11.Subsequent to the Full Bench decision in “Maya SanjayKhandare” (supra), the Apex Court, on 29th September, 2021,rendered decision in “Ramgopal and Another V/s State foMadhya Pradesh” (2022) 14 SCC 531, wherein it is held that;13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinousoffences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature,can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already beenconcluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handingout punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societalmethod of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawfulexceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromiseis struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise suchdiscretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstancessurrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise hasbeen arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness ofthe offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after theincidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powerunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice.There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the HighCourt to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherentpowers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or speciousjustice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, mayrather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where