Bombay High Court
Balasaheb Kachru Suryawanshi vs Sahebrao Walu Chavan And Ors on 20 November, 2025
1 Rev. Appln. No. 153 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3584 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2003
1. Balasaheb Kachru Suryawanshi
And others
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another
....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATED : /11/2025.
P. C. :
1. Heard rival submissions. By way of this application, the
applicants, who are original accused, are seeking quashing of
Judgment and order dated 27.03.2003, passed by the learned Trial
Judge, i.e. 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in
Sessions Case No. 216 of 2002, on settlement and consequently
there acquittal.
2. Admittedly, the applicant No.1 and 3 are convicted in the
aforesaid Sessions Case for the offence under Section 325 of the
IPC and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are convicted for the offence under
Section 324 of the IPC in the same case. For the offence under
2 Rev. Appln. No. 153 of 2003
Section 325 of the IPC, the applicant No.1 and 3 are sentenced to
suffer R.I. for two months and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/- each with
default clause. Whereas, for the offence under Section 324 of the
IPC, the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are sentenced to suffer R.I. for one
year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default clause.
However, during the pendency of the present appeal of the
applicant compromise took place between applicants and informant
/ respondent No.2, which resulted into filing of compromise terms
between them. The said compromise is taken on record and
marked 'X' for identification. It was sent to the learned Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court for verifying its contents. The learned
Registrar (Judicial) vide report dated 04.11.2025, intimated this
Court that the parties to the compromise admitted the contents
and submitted that they have voluntarily entered into the
compromise. According to them, due to intervention of elderly
persons and for future harmonious relations, they have buried
their dispute and now they have decided to enjoy their friendship
by forgetting all the earlier bitter experience of the incident as well
as criminal prosecution. Thus, they are now seeking quashing of
impugned judgment at post conviction stage. However, it is also
significant to note that in the instant case, there were other injured
persons also, namely Sominath Sahebrao Chavan, Bhaginath
3 Rev. Appln. No. 153 of 2003
Sahebrao Chavan and Shivaji Sahebrao Chavan. They have filed
their respective affidavits mentioning that they also have settled
their dispute with the applicants and thereby supported the prayer
claimed by the applicants in this application.
The learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the petition, on the
ground that the offences are non compoundable and the parties
unnecessarily used police as well as Court machinery, since 2003.
However, in the case of Ramgopal ......
In view of the aforesaid observations it has been made clear
that parties can be allowed to compromise the matter in non
compoundable matters even at the post conviction stage, by
exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
In the instant matter, it appears that the applicants and
respondent No.2 are residents of same village and they have
already decided to burry their differences for leading harmonious
life in future. The injured persons have also settled their
dispute with the applicants. Therefore, by considering the ratio
laid down by the Hobnle Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment and
also considering the contents of compromise terms filed by the rival
parties, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising
powers under Section 482 of the Cr,P.C by granting them
4 Rev. Appln. No. 153 of 2003
permission to compound the matter. However, we are also of the
opinion that since such compounding would result in the
acquittal of applicants, they are not permitted to claim any refund
of the fine amount deposited by them in the Court of learned Trial
Judge, as they have utilized the Court machinery since long and
then sought compounding of matter at post conviction stage.
In the result we pass following order.
(I) The application stands allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order dated 27.02.2003 passed by the 4 th
Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case
No. 216 of 2022 stands quashed and set aside along with the
conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge therein.
Consequently the applicants are hereby acquitted, however, the fine
amounts deposited by them shall stand forfeited to the
Government.
(iii) The Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 2003 now being infructious,
also stands disposed of.
5 Rev. Appln. No. 153 of 2003
1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates for
the rival parties.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashment
of the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhokar, below Exhibits 40 and 41 in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2019,
whereby the learned Judge refused to compound the offence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned APP
for the State, and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4,
including the complainant and the injured.
4. It is significant to note that the petitioners and respondent
Nos.2 to 4 are now seeking quashment, as stated above, on the
basis of a settlement. It is further noted that under the impugned
orders, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the
applications filed by the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for
compounding the offence merely on the ground that Sections 452
and 294 of the IPC are non-compoundable. However, it is pertinent
to note that today the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 4
6 Rev. Appln. No. 153 of 2003
have filed a joint affidavit on record stating that they support the
compromise arrived at between themselves before the learned
Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2019. They have stated
in the said affidavit that they belong to the same family and that
the dispute resulting in FIR No. 166 of 2012 was of a civil nature
relating to partition of their ancestral land. Accordingly, they are
now seeking quashment of the FIR and the criminal proceedings,
even after the conviction, at the appellate stage."
5. Learned APP though opposed the said petition, but the
compromise can be permitted to be recorded even after the
conviction. In case of Ramgopal and another vs. the State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 1 Mh.L.J. (Cri) 291, it is observed that
having regard to the nature of the offence and parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly
consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the High
Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure even if the offences are not
compoundable. In case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635 the same view has been reiterated by
referring the earlier aforesaid judgment. It has been specifically
observed as follows:
7 Rev. Appln. No. 153 of 2003
"We, however, put the further caveat that powers under
Article 142 or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are
exercisable in post conviction matters only when an
appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum.
This is on the premise that an order of conviction does
not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his /
her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before
an appellate court. As such now the pendency of
criminal proceedings before the final court is sine qua
non to involve the superior Court's plenary powers to do
complete justice."
6. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioners and
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are close blood relatives, being inter se
cousins and at the instance of relatives and respected persons of
the village, they have decided to bury their differences for the
purpose of living harmonious life. In view of the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and considering
the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the rival parties, we are of
the considered view that this is a fit case for exercising powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by granting permission to
compound the matter. However, at the same time, certain costs
need to be imposed on the petitioners as they have utilized the
court machinery and thereafter sought permission to compound
8 Rev. Appln. No. 153 of 2003
the matter at the post-conviction stage. In view of the same, we
pass the following order.
ORDER
A) The petition stands allowed and the petitioners
and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are permitted to
compound the offence, subject to payment of
costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five
Thousand only) to the Advocate's Bar Library,
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad, within a period of two weeks
B) The conviction of the petitioners in RCC No.31
of 2013 recorded by Judicial Magistrate (First
Class), Bhokar, District Nanded under
judgment and order dated 20/06/2019 arising
out of FIR No.166 of 2012 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
C) Consequently, the orders of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, District :
Nanded passed below Exhibits-40 & 41 sand
quashed and set aside.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
VS Maind/-
