Bombay High Court
Avdhut Shamrao Bagal And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 August, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 CRI.WP-697-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 697 OF 2021
1. Avdhut S/o. Shamrao Bagal,
Age : 34 years, Occupation : Labour
2. Shamrao S/o. Irbaji Bagal,
Age : 61 years, Occupation : Agri,
3. Sow. Gayabai W/o. Shamrao Bagal,
Age : 56 years, Occupation : Household,
All R/o. Lon (Khurd),
Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station, Ardhapur,
Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded.
2. Sunita Avdhut Bagal,
Age : 36 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. C/o. Raosaheb Madhavrao Adhav,
Ganesh Colony, Near Mhasoba Temple,
Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents
Mr Shivraj B. Kadu, Advocate for Petitioners
Mrs Preeti V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State
Mr Rupesh C. Bora, Advocate holding for
Mr S.C. Zalte, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with consent of both sides at admission stage.
::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 05:08:32 :::
2 CRI.WP-697-2021
3. The petitioners are seeking relief of quashing of proceedings of
Criminal Appeal No. 68/2014 pending before the Sessions Court at
Nanded arising out of order of conviction passed in Regular Criminal Case
No. 8/2012 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded
for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code on account of settlement between the parties post-
conviction by taking aid of Article 226 of the Constution of India and Sec.
482 of Cr.P.C.
4. Heard Mr Shivraj Kadu, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mrs Preeti V. Diggikar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent No.1 and
Mr Rupesh C. Bora, learned counsel holding for Mr S.C. Zalte, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Mr Kadu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded was
pleased to convict the petitioners for the offence punishable under section
498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and order of conviction
rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur, the petitioners
have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 68/2014 before the Sessions Court at
Nanded. During the pendency of said criminal appeal, parties have arrived
at amicable settlement. They have filed joint compromise deed signed by
both the sides and their advocates. He submitted that due to intervention
of family members of both the sides, petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2
::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 05:08:32 :::
3 CRI.WP-697-2021
have settled their differences and both of them are now residing together.
They have very good relations. It is necessary to quash the proceedings of
criminal appeal as well as proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.
8/2012 wherein petitioners came to be convicted.
7. Mr Rupesh Bora, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 made
similar submissions.
8. In view of the compromise between the parties after conviction
under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, appeal
proceedings pending on the file of Sessions Court is sought to be
quashed.
9. The question of setting aside of conviction due to compromise post-
conviction and permission thereof by invoking inherent powers under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. is no more res integra in view of the Full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Maya Sanjay Khandare and Anr. Vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 (1) Mh.L.J. 613. The Full Bench
of this Court has held in para No. 3 while answering Question (A) that " it
is only in rarest of rare cases, the court may quash the criminal
proceedings post-conviction for a non-compoundable offence on
settlement between the convict and the informant/complainant where a
jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter is raised for challenging
the conviction or in matrimonial disputes where the parties have agreed to
settle their differences, jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code could be
exercised. Such exercise of jurisdiction should be limited to the rarest of
::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2021 05:08:32 :::
4 CRI.WP-697-2021
rare cases when found necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of
the court or to secure the ends of justice."
10. Having regard to the legal position made clear by the Full Bench of
this Court in case of Maya Sanjay Khandare Vs. State of Maharashtra
(supra) and looking to the fact that the parties are now residing together, it
is necessary to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice. It would
be proper and just to close the chapter in the background of compromise
and particularly, when both of them are residing together.
11. In view of the above, we are convinced to pass the following order :-
ORDER
(I) The criminal writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause
(B) and (C).
(II) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(III) The Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ V.K. JADHAV, J. ]
mta
