Sandip Pandurang Bawale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 586 Bom

                                                   appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2021

1.      Sandip s/o Pandurang Bawale
2.      Ranjit s/o Shankar Dhage
3.      Pandurang s/o Baburao Bawale
4.      Mahadev s/o Baburao Bawale
5.      Nilawathi w/o Mahadev Bawale
6.      Rekha w/o Ranjit Dhage
7.      Priya @ Priydarshani w/o Sandip Bawale
8.      Surekha w/o Marothi Chobhe
9.      Kuldip s/o Pandurang Bawale
10.     Vitthal s/o Mahadev Bawale
11.     Pruthviraj s/o Ranjeet Dhage
12.     Maruti s/o Ramling Chobe                           .. Applicants

                 Versus

1.      The State of Maharashtra
        Through its, Police Inspector,
        Police Station, Bhoom
        Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad

2.      Pandit s/o Vitthal Dhage               .. Respondents
                                 ...
                               WITH
                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2766 OF 2022

1.      Pandit Vitthal Dhage
2.      Balaji Vitthal Dhage
3.      Tanaji Vitthal Dhage
4.      Vitthal Pandurang Dhage
5.      Atul Haribhau Dhage
6.      Rajubai Haribhau Dhage
7.      Jyoti Tanaji Dhage
8.      Shweta Atul Dhage
9.      Pallavi Balaji Dhage
10.     Haribhau Pandurang Dhage                           .. Applicants

                 Versus

1.      The State of Maharashtra
        Through the Superintendent of Police,
        Osmanabad.


                                       (1)


      ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2023              ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2023 22:00:00 :::
                                                      appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt



2.     The In-charge Investigation Oficer,
       Police Station, Boom, Dist. Osmanabad.

3.     Maroti Ramling Chobe                                  .. Respondents

                                  ...
Mr. S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for applicants in Criminal Application
No.211 of 2021.
Mr. V. S. Undre, Advocate for applicants in Criminal Application
No.2766 of 2022.
Mr. R. D. Sanap, APP for respondent No.1 - State in Criminal
Application No.211 of 2021.
Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State in
Criminal Application No.2766 of 2022.
Mr. V. S. Undre, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Criminal Application
No.211 of 2021.
Mr. S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for respondent No.3, in Criminal
Application No.2766 of 2022.
                                  ...

                         CORAM      :   SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

               RESERVED ON :            DECEMBER 05, 2022.
        PRONOUNCED ON :                 JANUARY 17, 2023.



ORDER :-           [Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.]


1)              Criminal Application No.211 of 2021 has been fled for

invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the First Information

Report lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 bearing Crime No.82

of 2019 dated 17.05.2019 registered with Bhoom Police Station, Dist.

Osmanabad for the ofences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

149, 307, 324, 327, 336, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code

and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act as well as the

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

further proceedings in R.C.C. No.23 of 2020 pending before the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.

1-A) Criminal Application No.2766 of 2022 has been fled for

invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the First Information

Report lodged at the behest of respondent No.3 bearing Crime No.83

of 2019 dated 17.05.2019 registered with Bhoom Police Station, Dist.

Osmanabad for the ofences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

452, 324, 326, 323, 427, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under

Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act as well as the further

proceedings i.e. Charge-sheet No.05 of 2020 fled before the Court of

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhoom.

2) The brief facts leading to Criminal Application No.211 of

2021 are as under :-

The applicants are the original accused persons in First

Information Report lodged by respondent No.2/informant, wherein it

was stated that the informant is residing at village Chinchpur (Dhage)

and practicing as an Advocate at Bhoom Court. On 16.05.2019 at

about 6.20 p.m. he was proceeding to his village along with his

maternal cousin brother Sunder Ughade on motorcycle. At about

7.00 p.m. they reached near the house of one Mahadev Bawale and

Maruthi Chobe. At that time, the present applicants in furtherance of

their common intention come across the motorcycle of the informant

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

and started abusing him by stating that why he had asked Dr. Kuldip

Bawale to tender apology before the Bhoom Bar Association and,

therefore, applicants - Vitthal Bawale, Pruthviraj Dhage and Maruti

Chobe gave three blows of axe on the head of the informant and

attempted to kill him, where as the applicants - Ranjit Dhage,

Mahadev Bawale, Sandip Bawale and Pandurang Bawale beaten him

by means of sticks on his back, waist and right shin. Thereafter,

applicant - Maruti Chobe snatched gold locket of the informant

weighing two Tola and also pelted stones on the informant's left leg

and stomach. Thereafter, other applicants i.e. Nilawathi Bawale,

Surekha Chobe, Rekha Dhage and Priya Bawale beat him by kicks and

fsts. The persons, namely, Tanaji Dhage, Balaji Dhage and Atul

Dhage tried to rescue the informant, but they were also beaten by

sticks. The assailants also gave threat to kill. Thereafter, the

informant and others were taken to Rural Hospital, Boom. The

informant thereafter lodged First Information Report against the

applicants.

2-A) The brief facts leading to Criminal Application No.2766 of

2022 are as under :-

The applicants are original accused persons in First

Information Report lodged by respondent No.3/informant, wherein it

was stated that the informant is resident of village Chinchpur and he

has alleged that on 16.05.2019 at about 7.30 p.m. his sister-in-law's

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

husband i.e. Ranjit Dhage came to him and stated that one Balaji

Dhage and Atul Dhage under the infuence of liquor abused him.

Thereafter, at about 7.45 p.m. when the informant, Ranjit and

Pruthviraj were standing at the veranda of the house, applicants -

Pandit Dhage, Balaji Dhage, Tanaji Dhage, Vitthal Dhage and

Haribhau Dhage came there and they told that said Ranjit and

Pruthviraj abused them. All those persons started abusing the

informant, Ranjit and Pruthviraj. Thereafter, when informant, Ranjit

and Pruthviraj going inside the house, at that time, all the applicants

started pelting stones towards them and they also entered the house

of the informant. One Pandit Dhage has broken the TV of the

informant. Thereafter, Pruthviraj was assaulted on his head. Tanaji

and Atul assaulted them by kicks and fst blows. Thereafter, one

Rajubai, Jyoti, Pallavi and Shweta caught hold the hair of the wife of

the informant and made her to lie on the ground. Thereafter, by

hearing the noise of quarrel when villagers gathered, the applicants

left the spot. The informant, Ranjit and Pruthviraj were taken to

hospital. The informant thereafter lodged First Information Report

against the applicants.

Since both the applications are arising out of the same

incident and against each other, the criminal applications are

considered together.

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

3) The matter has been investigated and charge-sheets have

been fled in both the cases. Now, there is a compromise between the

respective informants, victim and the accused persons in both the

cases. Hence, present applications have been fled for quashing of

both the First Information Reports as well as the charge-sheets.

4) Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. P. Urgunde for the

applicants, learned APP Mr. R. D. Sanap for respondent No.1 - State

and learned Advocate Mr. V. S. Undre for respondent No.2 in Criminal

Application No.211 of 2021 as well as learned Advocate Mr. V. S.

Undre for applicants, learned APP Mr. M. M. Nerlikar for respondent

No.1 and 2 - State and learned Advocate Mr. S. P. Urgunde for

respondent No.3 in Criminal Application No.2766 of 2022. Perused

the record.

5) The terms of compromise have been given in one original

form in respect of both the ofences. They have been got verifed

through learned Registrar (Judicial) and it is marked as Exhibit-A. In

the compromise pursis, it has been stated that all of them are from

the same village and they are defnitely related to each other. They

want to have harmony and want to go ahead in their life. They have

been advised by the respectable persons from the village and now

they have no complaints to make against each other. It is also stated

that they will maintain the cordial relations with each other and will

not indulge in any criminal activities against each other.

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

6) It is to be noted that as per the Medico Legal Certifcate

issued by Jagdale Mama Hospital, Barshi there is one injury on the

person of the informant - Pandit Dhage in Crime No.82 of 2019, which

was sutured wound with hard and blunt object and the nature of the

injury is stated to be simple, however, it was on high parietal region.

Then in the second case i.e. Crime No.83 of 2019 one Pruthviraj

Dhage has sustained two injuries one is CLW on parieto-occipital

region with hard and blunt object and the nature of the injury is

simple and second is abrasion on the right hand with hard and blunt

object and the nature of the injury is simple. No doubt, such ofences

are required to be seriously viewed, however, at the same time, it is

also required to be noted that applicants and respondents/informants

in respective applications are relatives of each other. They have

settled the matter amicably.

7) Learned Advocate for the applicants in Criminal

Application No.211 of 2021 has placed reliance on the following

decisions :-

i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another,

[2012 SCC Online SC 769].

ii) Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab

and another, [2014 SCC Online SC 265].

iii) Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujrat and another,

[2017 SCC Online SC 1189].

iv) Sushil Kantilal Bafana and another Vs. Akash

Vilas Shinde and another, [2021 DGLS (Bom.) 245]

v) Aman Mendiratta and another Vs. State NCT of

Delhi and another, [(Delhi High Court) Crl. M.C.

No.4035 of 2015 decided on 29.09.2015].

vi) Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan Vs. State of Punjab

and others, decided by Punjab-Haryana High Court in

Criminal Misc. No. M-9875 of 2017 on 30.10.2017.

vii) Chandrashekhar Dhruv @ Chandu s/o Late

Pardeshi Dhruv Vs. State of Chattisgarh and another,

decided by Chattisgarh High Court in CRMP No.1647

of 2017 on 22.02.2018.

viii) Gopal Lal s/o Shri Malu Ram Yadav and others Vs.

State of Rajasthan and another, decided by Rajasthan

High Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition)

No.2083 of 2018 on 19.04.2018.

ix) Sanjay Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided by

Rajasthan High Court in S. B. Criminal Misc. (Petition)

No.5893 of 2019 on 01.11.2019.

x) Dimpey Gujral and Ors. Vs. Union Territory

Through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.,

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

[2013 Cri.L.J. 520].

xi) Jai Narain Mahto and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar,

[2013 Cri. L.J. 522]

xii) Ashok Dhondiba Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra

and others, [2018 SCC Online Bom. 1826].

xiii) Anand Kumar Mohatta and another Vs. State

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and

another, [2019 Cri.L.J. 1297].

xiv) Yusuf s/o Jumme Khan and another Vs. State of

Rajasthan, [2019 Cri.L.J. 1303].

xv) B. S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and

another, [2003 Cri.L.J. 2028]

8) Per contra, the learned APP has relied on the three Judge

Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, [(2019) 5 SCC 688],

wherein it has been held that :-

" The Court has to apply mind to following while quashing on the basis of compromise - (i) Whether crime against society or against individual alone and kind of dispute, whether civil or criminal, (ii) Seriousness, nature and category/kind of crime/ofence and how committed, (iii) whether ofence under special statute, (iv) stage of

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

proceedings, (v) conduct and antecedents of accused, whether accused absconding, why absconding and how he managed to compromise with complainant. "

Learned APP has harped upon clause (v) of the aforesaid

decision, which reads thus :-

"(v) While exercising the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable ofences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the ofender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."

As regards the criminal antecedents of the applicants are

concerned, it is to be noted that certain applicants were accused in

Crime No.116 of 2018 on one side and certain applicants were

accused in Crime No.117 of 2018, however, now the copies of the

judgment by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Boom, Dist.

Osmanabad in respect of R.C.C. Nos.63 of 2018 and 21 of 2019 have

been produced on record. Both were decided on 05.09.2022 and

perusal of the same would show that the ofences involved in the

same were Crime Nos.116 of 2018 and 117 of 2018. It appears that

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

due to the compromise, only one witness was examined on behalf of

the prosecution, who turned hostile and, therefore, those accused

persons have been acquitted. Under such circumstance, there is no

antecedents, as against the applicants are concerned.

9) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], has laid down the

following ratio -

"51 Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of ofences. It catalogues the ofences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the Court and the composition of certain ofences with the permission of the court. The ofences punishable under the special statutes are not covered by Section 320. When an ofence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such ofence or an attempt to commit such ofence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 of the IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of ofence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an ofence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the ofence with the permission of the court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. The revisional court is also competent to allow any person to compound any ofence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an ofence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no ofence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an ofence has to be in accord with Section 320 and in no other manner.

52 The question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an ofender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code.

53 Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, nothing in this Code which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

powers on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is specifc provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

54 In diferent situations, the inherent power may be exercised in diferent ways to achieve its ultimate objective. Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.

55 In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito be supplied justitiae is by

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

necessary inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection.

56 It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and infexible guidelines can also be provided.

57 Quashing of ofence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an ofender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of ofence. They are diferent and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of ofences given to a court under Section 320 is materially diferent from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of ofences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal ofence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

58 Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the ofender and victim has been settled although ofences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful efect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious ofences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other ofences of mental depravity under IPC or ofences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the ofences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between ofender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain ofences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil favour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, fnancial, partnership or such like transactions or the ofences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the ofender and victim have settled all disputes

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such ofences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfed that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of ofender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed."

Further, after referring to various other decisions it

has been held that,

"61 The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and diferent from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the ofences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the ofender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious ofences of mental depravity or ofences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fttingly quashed even though the victim or victims family and the ofender have settled the dispute. Such ofences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and ofender in relation to the ofences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the ofences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such ofences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil favour stand on diferent footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the ofences arising from commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the ofences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the ofender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in afirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

10) The decision in Gian Singh (Supra) is also a three Judge

Bench decision. It cannot be said that it is in any way contrary to the

decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and

others (Supra). It has been rather stated that in what cases power

to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be

exercised where the ofender and the victim have settled their dispute

would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no

category can be prescribed. Here, in this case, the allegations are

that the unlawful assembly was formed. Though it is stated that the

weapons used were axe, stick and stones, yet axe was never seized

rather four sticks, one iron rod and stones have been seized. The

medical report states about one injury to Pandit Dhage in Crime

No.82 of 2019, which was sutured wound with hard and blunt object

and the nature of the injury is stated to be simple, however, it was on

high parietal region. Then in the second case i.e. Crime No.83 of

2019 one Pruthviraj Dhage has sustained two injuries one is CLW on

parieto-occipital region with hard and blunt object and the nature of

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

the injury is simple and second is abrasion on the right hand with

hard and blunt object and the nature of the injury is simple.

Therefore, taking into consideration the injuries, there is no hurdle in

allowing the matter to be compromised. One more aspect is required

to be noted is that as regards accused No.9 in Crime No.83 of 2019

i.e. Vitthal Pandurang Dhageis concerned, there is ofence registered

against him vide Crime No.156 of 2016 with Bhoom Police Station,

Dist. Osmanabad for the ofence punishable under Sections 7, 12,

13(1), 13(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and it is lodged by

one Asif B. Shaikh, who himself is the Police Inspector to Anti

Corruption Bureau, Osmanabad. It is totally a diferent kind of

ofence, which is nothing to be connected to the present ofence so

also as regards accused Tanaji Dhage in Crime No.83 of 2019 is

concerned, ofence vide Crime No.44 of 207 with Boom Police Station,

Dist. Osmanabad under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code has been registered against him on the basis of FIR

lodged by one Nitin Uddhavrao Patil, who was the Head Constable. It

is in respect of suicide of one Anil Popat Andhare and it is stated that

it was on the account of alleged illicit relations between said Tanaji

Dhage with the wife of the deceased. It is also nothing to do with the

crime in the present case. Therefore, these criminal antecedents

cannot be considered or should be taken as hurdle.

11) Thus, when the parties have compromised the matter and

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

now in the terms of compromise, respondents/informants are coming

with a case that they have settled the matter amicably, defnitely,

possibility of their turning hostile at the time of evidence cannot be

ruled out. When they want to keep harmony in the family, it is a

welcoming step and, therefore, we feel it necessary to exercise our

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. However, at the same time, when the entire machinery

has been misused by the respondents/informants and now on some

terms when the applicants have approached respondents/informants,

they have compromised the matter. Under such circumstance, we

intend to impose some cost and conditions on the parties. Hence, the

following order.

ORDER

i) Criminal Application Nos.211 of 2021 and 2766 of

2022 stand allowed.

ii) The First Information Report vide Crime No.82 of

2019 dated 17.05.2019 registered with Bhoom Police

Station, Dist. Osmanabad, for the ofences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 327, 336,

323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police

Act as well as the further proceedings in R.C.C. No.23

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

of 2020 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad stand quashed

and set aside, as against the applicants in Criminal

Application No.211 of 2021.

iii) The First Information Report vide Crime No.83 of

2019 dated 17.05.2019 registered with Bhoom Police

Station, Dist. Osmanabad, for the ofences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 336, 323, 427,

504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135

of the Maharashtra Police Act as well as the further

proceedings i.e. Charge-sheet No.05 of 2020 fled

before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Boom, Osmanabad, stand quashed and set aside, as

against the applicants in Criminal Application No.2766

of 2022.

iv) Applicant Nos.1) Sandip s/o Pandurang Bawale,

2) Ranjit s/o Shankar Dhage, 3) Pandurang s/o

Baburao Bawale, 4) Mahadev s/o Baburao Bawale,

5) Nilawathi w/o Mahadev Bawale, 6) Rekha w/o

Ranjit Dhage, 7) Priya @ Priydarshani w/o Sandip

Bawale, 8) Surekha w/o Marothi Chobhe, 9) Kuldip

s/o Pandurang Bawale, 10) Vitthal s/o Mahadev

Bawale, 11) Pruthviraj s/o Ranjeet Dhage and

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

12) Maruti s/o Ramling Chobe and respondent No.2)

Pandit Vitthal Dhage in Criminal Application No.211

of 2021 shall fle an undertaking before this Court on

or before 25.01.2023 that they would deposit amount

of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each in the

High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,

Aurangabad, within a period of four weeks from today.

v) Applicant Nos.1) Pandit Vitthal Dhage, 2)

Balaji Vitthal Dhage, 3) Tanaji Vitthal Dhage, 4)

Vitthal Pandurang Dhage, 5) Atul Haribhau

Dhage, 6) Rajubai Haribhau Dhage, 7) Jyoti Tanaji

Dhage, 8) Shweta Atul Dhage, 9) Pallavi Balaji

Dhage and 10) Haribhau Pandurang Dhage and

respondent No.3) Maruti Ramling Chobe in Criminal

Application No.2766 of 2022 shall fle an undertaking

before this Court on or before 25.01.2023 that they

would deposit amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One

Thousand only) each in the High Court Legal Services

Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, within a period of four

weeks from today.

vi) The applicants and respondents/informants in

respective applications should also state in the

undertaking that they will maintain good relations with

appln-211-2021 and 2766-2022.odt

each other and they would participate in peace

programme undertaken by Bhoom Police Station, Dist.

Osmanabad, for a period of two years.

vii) The Police Inspector should take note of this

direction and call these persons in peace keeping

programmes undertaken within the jurisdiction of the

Police Station and issue certifcate regarding

participation of the respective applicants and

respondents/informants, every month.

[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ]                            [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
      JUDGE                                               JUDGE


scm