Bombay High Court
Narayan Vishnu Vaybhat vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 August, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:20514-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1865 OF 2023
Narayan Vishnu Vaybhat,
Age 27 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Vaybhatwadi,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
... Petitioner
... Versus ...
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through it's Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Pimpalner,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
3 Anita w/o Dnyaneshwar Jagade,
Age 23 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
R/o Vaybhatwadi,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
... Respondents
...
Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. V.K. Kotecha, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. A.S. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent No.3
...
2 Cri.WP_1865_2023
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 30th JULY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 04th AUGUST, 2025
JUDGMENT :
( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
1 Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.N. Nagargoje for petitioner,
learned APP Mr. V.K. Kotecha for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned
Advocate Mr. A.S. Jagtap for respondent No.3.
2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally with consent of both sides.
3 Present petition has been filed invoking the constitutional
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to get the conviction of
petitioner - original accused quashed, which was awarded in Regular
Criminal Case No.78/2017 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed on
19.12.2022 under Section 354-A(1)(i) and Section 451 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4 Present petitioner came to be convicted by learned Judicial
3 Cri.WP_1865_2023
Magistrate First Class, Beed in the said matter and he has been sentenced to
suffer 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 Penal
Code. He has been further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two
years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
451 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he has been
asked to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, in whole. Set off was
granted to him under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
amount of fine was directed to be given to informant after the appeal period
is over. Both the sentences were directed to run consecutively. Present
petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No.101/2022 before learned Sessions
Judge, Beed challenging the said conviction awarded to him. In the said
appeal an application was filed for compounding of the offence by filing
compromise pursis on 13.09.2023 at Exh.18. It was stated in the pursis that
parties want to maintain the cordial relations in future as they are from the
same village as well as they are related to each other distantly. However,
learned Appellate Court rejected the application and the pursis stating that
the offence is non compoundable and, therefore, the petitioner approached
this Court.
5 Learned Advocate for petitioner has relied on State of Madhya
4 Cri.WP_1865_2023
Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others [(2019) 5 SCC 688], wherein the law
was summarized, as to under which circumstance when the criminal
proceedings is for non compoundable offence under Section 320 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure; power conferred under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court. He submits that
various decisions in the past were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while summarizing the law. Further, he has also relied on Ramgopal vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh [2022 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 291], wherein also the
guidelines have been prescribed. He also relies on the recent decision in
Madhukar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and another with
companion matter in Criminal Appeal No(s). ............ of 2025 (arising out of
SLP (Cri.) No.7212 of 2025) decided on 14.07.2025, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court quashed and set aside the offence under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code by observing that the power of the Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure the ends of justice and it is
not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to
the facts of each case.
6 Learned Advocate for respondent No.3 - original informant
supports petitioner and submits that now the informant and petitioner have
decided to maintain good relations. The informant wants to bury the
5 Cri.WP_1865_2023
differences and pardon the petitioner.
7 Learned APP strongly opposes the petition and submits that if
such compromise is allowed to be considered after conviction, then it will
give a wrong message to the society. This Court is duty bound to consider the
settlement post conviction as per the principles those have been summarized
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as to when the quashment of the
proceedings in non compoundable offence is made as compared to the
powers of the Appellate Court under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The facts are required to be considered here. The prosecution
story was that the informant was alone in the house on 01.01.2017 and when
she was putting on clothes the petitioner entered her house and locked the
door from inside and started pulling the informant by holding her arms with
bad intention. The informant was resisting but accused did not leave her and
dragged her towards bed and molested her and he was soliciting sexual
favour. When informant shouted, at that time, accused left and fled from the
place of incident. The evidence was led. Present petitioner had the
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. His statement under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The submissions on behalf
of both sides were considered and then the learned trial Judge held the
petitioner guilty for committing both the offence. Thus, when the conviction
6 Cri.WP_1865_2023
is on merits of the case, it need not be disturbed only on account of some
compromise post cognizance.
8 Here, we are required to consider firstly the legal position. Of
course, learned Sessions Judge had no power to compound the non
compoundable offence and, therefore, petitioner had no option but to knock
the doors of this Court. Now, the legal position is then required to be
considered. In Laxmi Narayan (supra) the law was summarized thus -
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of
this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and
held as under :
15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to
quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences
under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties
have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2 Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society;
15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences
under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
7 Cri.WP_1865_2023
offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity
are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender;
15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would
fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are
to be treated as crime against the society and not against the
individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the
offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a
serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have
resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or
the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved,
would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this
purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of
injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate
parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an
exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the
evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is
filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore,
the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of
this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances
stated hereinabove;
8 Cri.WP_1865_2023
15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to
quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable
offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart
on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, 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."
8.1 In Ramgopal (supra) it is observed that having regard to the
nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their
dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal
proceedings, High Court can quash such proceedings in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even
if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably
evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an
individual and thereafter, adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the
felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very
object of the administration of criminal justice system. In another case Ahfaz
Ahmad vs. State of Maharashtra [2020 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 237] such
application for quashment of the conviction was allowed as the incident had
occurred due to property dispute. Of course, there is also the decision in
9 Cri.WP_1865_2023
Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 13 SCC 635], wherein
Ramgopal (supra) was also considered and it is observed that -
"We, however, put the further caveat that the powers under Article
142 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are
exercisable in post conviction matters only on the premise that an
order of conviction does not attend finality till the accused has
exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudiced before
an Appellate Court." The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may
before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior Court's
plenary powers to do complete justice.
8.2 We may also refer to the Full Bench decision of this Court in
Maya vs. State of Maharashtra [2021(1) Mh.L.J. 613], wherein following
questions were framed, which are as under -
"(A) In a prosecution which has culminated in a conviction, whether
the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
ought to be exercised for quashing the prosecution/conviction
altogether, (instead of maintaining it and considering the issue of
modification of the sentence) upon a settlement between the convict
and the victim/complainant ?
(B) Whether the broader principles/parameters as set out in Gian
Singh 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 Parbatbhai
Aahir 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
10 Cri.WP_1865_2023
Kisanrao Ghodse, Ajmatkhan Rahematkhan and Shivaji Haribhau
Jawanjal ?"
The answer has been given after much discussion
and taking into consideration the previous decisions of this
Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, which reads thus -
"33. ........... At the conclusion of the criminal trial the Court on
finding the evidence on record led by the prosecution to be sufficient
to prove the guilt of the accused would proceed to convict the
accused. The remedy of challenging the order of conviction is
available to the accused by way of an appeal. Any compromise
entered into post-conviction for a non-compoundable offence cannot
by itself result in acquittal of the accused. Similarly, the Court has no
power to compound any offence that is non-compoundable and not
permitted to be compounded under Section 320 of the Code. The
compromise entered into therefore is just a mitigating factor that can
be taken into account while hearing the appeal/revision challenging
the conviction and which factor has to be taken into consideration
while imposing appropriate punishment/sentence. It is not
permissible to set aside the judgment of conviction at the
appellate/revisional stage only on the ground that the parties have
entered into a compromise. In a given case the appellate
Court/revisional Court also has the option of not accepting the
compromise. Thus if the judgment of conviction cannot be set aside
in an appeal/revision only on the ground that the parties have
entered into a compromise similar result cannot be obtained in a
proceeding under Section 482 of the Code.
11 Cri.WP_1865_2023
Hence, we hold that ordinarily the contention that the convict and the
informant/complainant have entered into a compromise after the
judgment of conviction can be raised only before the
appellate/revisional Court in proceedings challenging such
conviction. It would be a sound exercise of discretion under Section
482 of the Code and in accordance with the law of the land to refuse
to quash criminal proceedings post-conviction for a non-
compoundable offence only on the ground that the parties have
entered into a compromise. Instead the Court can permit the
convicted party to bring to the notice of the appellate/revisional
Court the aspect of compromise. Having said so, it is only in rarest of
rare cases that the Court may quash the criminal proceedings post-
conviction for a non-compoundable offence on settlement between
the convict and the informant/complainant. .........."
9 Thus, taking into consideration all these aspects the legal
position that is emerging is that for entertaining such petition/application for
quashment of the conviction there should be an appeal or revision that is
pending, as the case may be. That means, order or conviction ought not to
have achieved the finality. The law summarized in Laxmi Narayan (supra)
reiterated in Ramgopal (supra) and, therefore, with these guidelines now the
facts are required to be considered. The prosecution story has already been
stated while referring to the arguments advanced by learned APP, therefore,
we avoid the repetition. Now, respondent No.3 - informant has voluntarily
come forward to forgive the petitioner. Though it can be said that outraging
12 Cri.WP_1865_2023
the modesty of a woman is against the society; yet it depends upon the lady
to forgive the accused. Therefore, since the case is befitting in the
parameters, there is no hurdle for us to accept the compromise. However,
certainly, we would impose cost on the petitioner after entire exercise of the
matter, that is, the legal steps the compounding is prayed. Hence, following
order.
ORDER
i) Criminal Writ Petition stands allowed.
ii) Respondent No.3 and petitioner are allowed to compound the
offence, consequently, we quash the conviction of petitioner in Regular
Criminal Case No.78/2017 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed
dated 19.12.2022.
iii) Present petitioner stands acquitted of the offence punishbale
under Section 354-A(1)(i), 451 of the Indian Penal Code.
iv) Criminal Appeal No.101/2022 pending before learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Beed stands disposed of, as a consequence of setting aside
the conviction of petitioner.
v) Petitioner to deposit cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
13 Cri.WP_1865_2023
only) on or before 18.08.2025, with the Registry i.e. the Committee
consisting 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 present
petitioner before trial Court on 19.12.2022. Petitioner is allowed to
withdraw amount of Rs.25,000/- out of said fine amount i.e. learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Beed to give amount of Rs.25,000/- from the said
amount to respondent No.3 - informant and rest of the amount be returned
to the petitioner.
vii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
agd
