Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Vinod Keshav Thorat & Three Others on 15 June, 2016
Bench: A.I.S. Cheema
920.APEAL.341.05.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2005
State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Bhagyanagar,
Nanded. ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Vinod Keshav Thorat
Age: 18 years,
2. Vachalabai Keshav Thorat
Age: 35 years,
3. Deepak Keshav Thorat
Age: 20 yeas,
4. Keshav Govind Thorat
Age: 40 years,
All R/o Shivnerinagar, Sangvi (Bk),
Tq. and Dist. Nanded. ..RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3209 OF 2016
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2005
1. Ramrao Laxmanrao Thorat
Age: 74 years, Occu.: Retired Person
2. Kausalaya Ramrao Thorat
Age: 65 years, Occu.: Household
Both R/o In front of Nrusinha Mahavidyalaya,
Parasnagar Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
3. Vinod Keshav Thorat
Age: 18 years, Occu.: Agri.,
1 / 4
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:30:34 :::
920.APEAL.341.05.doc
4. Vachalabai Keshav Thorat
Age: 35 years, Occu.: Household,
5. Deepak Keshav Thorat
Age: 20 yeas, Occu.: Agri.,
6. Keshav Govind Thorat
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Agri.,
All R/o Shivnerinagar, Sangvi (Bk),
Tq. and Dist. Nanded. ..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Bhagyanagar,
Nanded. ..RESPONDENT
....
Mr. R.V. Dhasalkar, A.P.P. for appellant.
Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for respondents.
....
CORAM : A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATED : 15th JUNE, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This is part heard appeal. This appeal has been filed against
the acquittal of the respondents i.e. original accused. It was admitted on
10.12.2007.
2. Heard learned A.P.P. for State and learned Counsel for
respondent-accused.
2 / 4
920.APEAL.341.05.doc
3. Respondents - original accused are present before the Court
and identified by Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, learned Counsel for the respondents
in appeal. Original complainant Mr. Ramrao Laxmanrao Thorat and Mrs.
Kausalaya Ramrao Thorat are also present and are identified by Mr. A.S.
Gandhi, learned Counsel for applicants in the application.
4. Complainant, his wife and the accused have filed the present
application for compounding of the offence. The application tendered
was referred to the Registrar (Judicial) and report is received from the
Registrar (Judicial). Complainant, his wife and the accused admit the
contents of the report and state that they have settled the matter between
them.
5. The learned A.P.P. opposes the application as according to him
the accused have unlawfully assembled and committed riot and caused
grievous injuries. The fact of the case shows that the parties are relatives
and while taking measurement of the plot dispute arose and incident took
place. It is in the interest of justice that both the sides should live
peacefully and there is no material to show that the parties have criminal
background.
3 / 4
920.APEAL.341.05.doc
6. For such reasons, although this appeal is admitted against
acquittal and non-compoundable sections are involved, I accept the
compromise pursis filed by the complainant, his wife and the accused
persons by invoking inherent powers to do justice between the parties.
Compromise pursis is taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification.
Report of the Registrar (Judicial) is also taken on record and marked as 'Y'
for identification.
7.
For the reasons mentioned above, application to compound is
accepted. No interference in acquittal of respondents is called for.
Appeal of the State is dismissed.
( A.I.S. CHEEMA, J. )
SSD
4 / 4
