Vilas Gyanba Jawale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 998 Bom

                                                 Cri.Appln.No. 2163/16
                                      1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
              APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2163 OF 2016

          Vilas Gyanba Jawale,
          Age 42 years, Occu. Service,
          R/o. Kamal Nagar, Hingoli,
          Tq. & District Hingoli               ....Applicant.

                  Versus

 1.       State of Maharashtra
          Through P.S.I.
          City Police Station, Hingoli
          Tq. and District Hingoli.

 2.       Jayshree w/o. Vilas Jawale,
          Age 36 years, Occu. Nil,
          R/o. Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli    ....Respondents.



 Mr. P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for applicant.
 Mr. S.D. Ghayal, APP for respondent/State.
 Mr. S.R. Shirsat, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

                                   CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : March 23, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,

heard both the sides for final disposal.

2) The present proceeding is filed by the appellant from

Criminal Appeal No. 7/2009, presently pending in the Sessions

Court, Hingoli. The appeal is filed against the judgment and

Cri.Appln.No. 2163/16

order of conviction given by Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Hingoli in R.C.C.No. 394/2003 and conviction and sentence is

given for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 506

(II) the of Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. The

learned APP is also heard.

3) Both the sides have produced the document of

compromise. The learned counsels representing both the sides

viz. Shri. P.S. Agrawal and Shri. S.R. Shirsat submit that parties

are present in the Court hall and the counsels are identifying

them. The prayer is made in compromise document to allow

them to compound the matter and set aside the conviction and

to acquit the husband of the offences and the parties are

resuming cohabitation by settling the dispute.

4) The learned counsel placed reliance on the

observations made by this Court in the case reported as 2006

Cri.L.J. 4591 [Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Anupama P.

Gaikwad and Ors.] BOMBAY HIGH COURT. The Division

Bench has considered similar point. It is laid down by the

Division Bench that even if there is conviction and appeal is

pending in Sessions Court, there is power with the High Court to

allow the parties to settle the dispute and this Court can set

Cri.Appln.No. 2163/16

aside the conviction and the proceeding can be quashed. It is

observed that inherent powers can be exercised by the High

Court for giving such relief. In the present matter, there is no

specific relief claimed in respect of the criminal appeal. This

Court presumes that the relief is claimed in respect of criminal

case in which conviction is given. In view of the aforesaid

circumstances and the position of law, this Court holds that the

present proceeding needs to be allowed.

5) So, the application is allowed. The judgment and

order of conviction of J.M.F.C., Hingoli is hereby set aside. Parties

are allowed to compound the offences and this order is made by

using inherent power. The proceeding is disposed of as

compounded and the accused stands acquitted. Appeal is also

disposed of accordingly.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

ssc/