High Court
Facts
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1865 OF 2023Narayan Vishnu Vaybhat,Age 27 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o Vaybhatwadi,Tq. & Dist. Beed. … Petitioner… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough it’s Secretary,Home Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2The Police Inspector,Police Station, Pimpalner,Tq. & Dist. Beed. 3Anita w/o Dnyaneshwar Jagade,Age 23 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o Vaybhatwadi,Tq. & Dist. Beed. … Respondents...Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitionerMr. V.K. Kotecha, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2Mr. A.S. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent No.3...
Legal Reasoning
9Cri.WP_1865_2023Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 13 SCC 635], whereinRamgopal (supra) was also considered and it is observed that - “We, however, put the further caveat that the powers under Article142 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure areexercisable in post conviction matters only on the premise that anorder of conviction does not attend finality till the accused hasexhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudiced beforean Appellate Court.” The pendency of legal proceedings, be that maybefore the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior Court’splenary powers to do complete justice. 8.2We may also refer to the Full Bench decision of this Court inMaya vs. State of Maharashtra [2021(1) Mh.L.J. 613], wherein followingquestions were framed, which are as under - “(A)In a prosecution which has culminated in a conviction, whetherthe power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedureought to be exercised for quashing the prosecution/convictionaltogether, (instead of maintaining it and considering the issue ofmodification of the sentence) upon a settlement between the convictand the victim/complainant ? (B)Whether the broader principles/parameters as set out in GianSingh vs. State of Punjab and another [2013 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri) (S.C.)417 = (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(4) Mh.l.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 241] = [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and ParbatbhaiAahir and others vs. State of Gujarat [2018(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 1]= [(2017) 9 SCC 641] have been correctly applied in deciding Udhav 10Cri.WP_1865_2023Kisanrao Ghodse, Ajmatkhan Rahematkhan and Shivaji HaribhauJawanjal ?”The answer has been given after much discussionand taking into consideration the previous decisions of thisCourt as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, which reads thus - “33.……….. At the conclusion of the criminal trial the Court onfinding the evidence on record led by the prosecution to be sufficientto prove the guilt of the accused would proceed to convict theaccused. The remedy of challenging the order of conviction isavailable to the accused by way of an appeal. Any compromiseentered into post-conviction for a non-compoundable offence cannotby itself result in acquittal of the accused. Similarly, the Court has nopower to compound any offence that is non-compoundable and notpermitted to be compounded under Section 320 of the Code. Thecompromise entered into therefore is just a mitigating factor that canbe taken into account while hearing the appeal/revision challengingthe conviction and which factor has to be taken into considerationwhile imposing appropriate punishment/sentence. It is notpermissible to set aside the judgment of conviction at theappellate/revisional stage only on the ground that the parties haveentered into a compromise. In a given case the appellateCourt/revisional Court also has the option of not accepting thecompromise. Thus if the judgment of conviction cannot be set asidein an appeal/revision only on the ground that the parties haveentered into a compromise similar result cannot be obtained in aproceeding under Section 482 of the Code. 11Cri.WP_1865_2023Hence, we hold that ordinarily the contention that the convict and theinformant/complainant have entered into a compromise after thejudgment of conviction can be raised only before theappellate/revisional Court in proceedings challenging suchconviction. It would be a sound exercise of discretion under Section482 of the Code and in accordance with the law of the land to refuseto quash criminal proceedings post-conviction for a non-compoundable offence only on the ground that the parties haveentered into a compromise. Instead the Court can permit theconvicted party to bring to the notice of the appellate/revisionalCourt the aspect of compromise. Having said so, it is only in rarest ofrare cases that the Court may quash the criminal proceedings post-conviction for a non-compoundable offence on settlement betweenthe convict and the informant/complainant. ……….”9Thus, taking into consideration all these aspects the legalposition that is emerging is that for entertaining such petition/application forquashment of the conviction there should be an appeal or revision that ispending, as the case may be. That means, order or conviction ought not tohave achieved the finality. The law summarized in Laxmi Narayan (supra)reiterated in Ramgopal (supra) and, therefore, with these guidelines now thefacts are required to be considered. The prosecution story has already beenstated while referring to the arguments advanced by learned APP, therefore,we avoid the repetition. Now, respondent No.3 – informant has voluntarilycome forward to forgive the petitioner. Though it can be said that outraging 12Cri.WP_1865_2023the modesty of a woman is against the society; yet it depends upon the ladyto forgive the accused. Therefore, since the case is befitting in theparameters, there is no hurdle for us to accept the compromise. However,certainly, we would impose cost on the petitioner after entire exercise of thematter, that is, the legal steps the compounding is prayed. Hence, followingorder. ORDERi)Criminal Writ Petition stands allowed. ii)Respondent No.3 and petitioner are allowed to compound theoffence, consequently, we quash the conviction of petitioner in RegularCriminal Case No.78/2017 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beeddated 19.12.2022. iii)Present petitioner stands acquitted of the offence punishbaleunder Section 354-A(1)(i), 451 of the Indian Penal Code. iv)Criminal Appeal No.101/2022 pending before learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Beed stands disposed of, as a consequence of setting asidethe conviction of petitioner. v)Petitioner to deposit cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand 13Cri.WP_1865_2023only) on or before 18.08.2025, with the Registry i.e. the Committeeconsisting of Dr. Sanjay Warade, Medical Officer, Government Dispensary,High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and learned Registrar(Administration), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.vi)It appears that the fine amount was deposited by presentpetitioner before trial Court on 19.12.2022. Petitioner is allowed towithdraw amount of Rs.25,000/- out of said fine amount i.e. learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Beed to give amount of Rs.25,000/- from the saidamount to respondent No.3 – informant and rest of the amount be returnedto the petitioner. vii)Rule is made absolute in the above terms. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd
Arguments
2Cri.WP_1865_2023CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.RESERVED ON :30th JULY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON :04th AUGUST, 2025JUDGMENT : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.N. Nagargoje for petitioner,learned APP Mr. V.K. Kotecha for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learnedAdvocate Mr. A.S. Jagtap for respondent No.3. 2Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition isheard finally with consent of both sides. 3Present petition has been filed invoking the constitutionalpowers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to get the conviction ofpetitioner – original accused quashed, which was awarded in RegularCriminal Case No.78/2017 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed on19.12.2022 under Section 354-A(1)(i) and Section 451 of the Indian PenalCode. 4Present petitioner came to be convicted by learned Judicial 3Cri.WP_1865_2023Magistrate First Class, Beed in the said matter and he has been sentenced tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 354-A(1)(i) of the Indian PenalCode. He has been further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for twoyears and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section451 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he has beenasked to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, in whole. Set off wasgranted to him under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Theamount of fine was directed to be given to informant after the appeal periodis over. Both the sentences were directed to run consecutively. Presentpetitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No.101/2022 before learned SessionsJudge, Beed challenging the said conviction awarded to him. In the saidappeal an application was filed for compounding of the offence by filingcompromise pursis on 13.09.2023 at Exh.18. It was stated in the pursis thatparties want to maintain the cordial relations in future as they are from thesame village as well as they are related to each other distantly. However,learned Appellate Court rejected the application and the pursis stating thatthe offence is non compoundable and, therefore, the petitioner approachedthis Court. 5Learned Advocate for petitioner has relied on State of Madhya 4Cri.WP_1865_2023Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others [(2019) 5 SCC 688], wherein the lawwas summarized, as to under which circumstance when the criminalproceedings is for non compoundable offence under Section 320 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure; power conferred under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court. He submits thatvarious decisions in the past were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtwhile summarizing the law. Further, he has also relied on Ramgopal vs. Stateof Madhya Pradesh [2022 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 291], wherein also theguidelines have been prescribed. He also relies on the recent decision inMadhukar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and another withcompanion matter in Criminal Appeal No(s). ………… of 2025 (arising out ofSLP (Cri.) No.7212 of 2025) decided on 14.07.2025, wherein Hon’bleSupreme Court quashed and set aside the offence under Section 376 of theIndian Penal Code by observing that the power of the Court under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure the ends of justice and it isnot constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference tothe facts of each case. 6Learned Advocate for respondent No.3 – original informantsupports petitioner and submits that now the informant and petitioner havedecided to maintain good relations. The informant wants to bury the 5Cri.WP_1865_2023differences and pardon the petitioner. 7Learned APP strongly opposes the petition and submits that ifsuch compromise is allowed to be considered after conviction, then it willgive a wrong message to the society. This Court is duty bound to consider thesettlement post conviction as per the principles those have been summarizedby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as to when the quashment of theproceedings in non compoundable offence is made as compared to thepowers of the Appellate Court under Section 320 of the Code of CriminalProcedure. The facts are required to be considered here. The prosecutionstory was that the informant was alone in the house on 01.01.2017 and whenshe was putting on clothes the petitioner entered her house and locked thedoor from inside and started pulling the informant by holding her arms withbad intention. The informant was resisting but accused did not leave her anddragged her towards bed and molested her and he was soliciting sexualfavour. When informant shouted, at that time, accused left and fled from theplace of incident. The evidence was led. Present petitioner had theopportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. His statement under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The submissions on behalfof both sides were considered and then the learned trial Judge held thepetitioner guilty for committing both the offence. Thus, when the conviction 6Cri.WP_1865_2023is on merits of the case, it need not be disturbed only on account of somecompromise post cognizance. 8Here, we are required to consider firstly the legal position. Ofcourse, learned Sessions Judge had no power to compound the noncompoundable offence and, therefore, petitioner had no option but to knockthe doors of this Court. Now, the legal position is then required to beconsidered. In Laxmi Narayan (supra) the law was summarized thus - “15.Considering the law on the point and the other decisions ofthis Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed andheld as under :15.1That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code toquash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offencesunder Section 320 of the Code can be exercised havingoverwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularlythose arising out of commercial transactions or arising out ofmatrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the partieshave resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;15.2Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions whichinvolved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offenceslike murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in natureand have a serious impact on society;15.3Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offencesunder the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the 7Cri.WP_1865_2023offences committed by public servants while working in that capacityare not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between thevictim and the offender;15.4Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. wouldfall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore areto be treated as crime against the society and not against theindividual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for theoffence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have aserious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powersunder Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties haveresolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the HighCourt would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention ofSection 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under thisprovision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as towhether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it orthe prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved,would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For thispurpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature ofinjury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegateparts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such anexercise by the High Court would be permissible only after theevidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet isfiled/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is notpermissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore,the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision ofthis Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be readharmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstancesstated hereinabove; 8Cri.WP_1865_202315.5While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code toquash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundableoffences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious imparton society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromisebetween the victim and the offender, the High Court is required toconsider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused,namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he wasabsconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter intoa compromise etc.”8.1In Ramgopal (supra) it is observed that having regard to thenature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled theirdispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminalproceedings, High Court can quash such proceedings in exercise of itsinherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, evenif the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitablyevaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of anindividual and thereafter, adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that thefelony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the veryobject of the administration of criminal justice system. In another case AhfazAhmad vs. State of Maharashtra [2020 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 237] suchapplication for quashment of the conviction was allowed as the incident hadoccurred due to property dispute. Of course, there is also the decision in