Bombay High Court
Shakilabee Abdul Kadar And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 13 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:28734-DB
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Application No. 2919 Of 2024
1. Shakilabee w/o Abdul Kadar
Age : 79 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o Devgaon Kusli, Tq. Badnapur,
Dist. Jalna.
2. Jahedabee w/o Sk. Lal,
Age : 73 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o Devgaon Kusli, Tq. Badnapur,
Dist. Jalna. .. Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Copy to be served on the
Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad.
2. Latabai w/o Dnyaneshwar Jadhav
Age : 46 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o Devgaon Kusli, Tq. Badnapur,
Dist. Jalna. .. Respondents
*****
* Mr. Sohail Subhedar holding for Mr. N.S. Ghanekar,
Advocate for the Applicants.
* Mr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Respondent No. 1.
* Mr. Sanket S. Palnitkar,
Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
*****
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ..
Date Of Reserving the Order : 6th October 2025
Date Of Pronouncing the Order : 13th October 2025
[1]
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odt
ORDER [ Per Mehroz K. Pathan, J. ] :
1. The application has filed by the Applicants who are the
accused convicted in Sessions Case by the learned Special Court in
Special Case No.14/2001 for quashing and setting aside the
judgment and order dated 11.06.2003 on the ground that the
complainant/Latabai in the said crime and the Applicant
No.1/Shakilabee and Applicant No.2/Jahedabee have settled the
dispute.
2. This Court had issued the notice to the Respondents as well
as the learned APP waived service on behalf of the State
Government. The matter was thereafter heard and vide order
dated 10.09.2025, this Court had considered the present
application for hearing. This Court has taken note of the fact that
the Respondent No.2/Complainant was paid an amount of
Rs.6250/- in 2002 under the scheme to compensate the members
of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, against whom the
atrocities were alleged. The learned APP thus took an objection
that the compromise shall not be accepted after the Applicants
have already been convicted for the said offences under the
Atrocities Act.
3. It was also noticed in the order dated 10.09.2025 that the
Respondent No.2/Complainant would voluntarily deposit the
amount of Rs.6250/- which she has received from the Government
and for the reasons in the settlement deed, she wants to give
consent for the quashment of the conviction. This Court allowed
the Respondent No.2 to deposit the said amount with the Social
Justice Department within a period of two weeks and to produce a
[2]
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odt
copy of the receipt of such deposit.
4. The matter was thereafter listed before this court on
01.10.2025. The statement was made before this Court that the
Respondent No.2/Complainant - Latabai had deposited the
amount of Rs.6250/- as directed by this Court vide order dated
10.09.2025. However as the parties were not present before this
Court, the Counsels were directed to keep the parties before this
Court. The parties are thus, present before this Court today,
confirming that they have arrived at a settlement and for the
reasons stated in the application that the Applicants are old aged
ladies and that the criminal proceedings arise out of trivial dispute
between them and that with intervention of the neighbours and
respectable persons of the vicinity, they have decided to settle the
dispute amongst themselves. The Respondent No.2 has
categorically made statement that she has no objection for
quashment of the proceeding.
5. The Respondent No.2 was personally present before this
Court and her identification particulars was verified by this Court
by putting questions to her. Learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.2 appearing on her behalf also identified her and produces a
photocopy of the Aadhar Card on record which is marked as
document 'X' for identification. The Applicants and Respondent
were present before this Court and after interaction with them it
was found that they were old aged ladies and wanted to settle their
disputes permanently so that they can live amicably in the
neighborhood. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment
reported in Ramgopal and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
[3]
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odt
(2022) 14 SCC 531, has held that the powers under Section 482
can be exercised, even to quash the conviction of the accused
persons, even at the appellate stage by the Appellate Court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the inherent powers of the
High Court under Section 482, is to be exercised, to see that there
is no abuse of process of law.
6. The perusal of the judgment of the conviction would show
that the Applicants/accused persons have abused the Complainant
in the name of her caste on a trivial issue and have thereafter
attempted to push the Complainant in the well and as such the
Applicants were prosecuted for committing to attempt to murder
of the Complainant and under the relevant Section 3(i)(x) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act. The Applicants were also charged for an offence under Section
323 of the Indian Penal Code. The perusal of the entire record
would show that there was hardly any injuries on the person of
the Complainant/victim, which would make the offence fall under
the heinous or grievous offence category.
7. The learned APP had opposed the quashing of the proceeding
after the conviction of the Appellants on the ground of settlement
in a non-compoundable offence. He submits that the Full Bench of
this Court in the judgment in Maya Sanjay Khandare and Another
Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 (1) Mh.L.J. 613, has held that post
conviction compromise is not sufficient to set aside the conviction
in non-compoundable offence. This Court also had an occasion to
deal with identical application for quashing of the settlement after
the conviction of the Appellants, in Criminal Appeal No.568/2011
[4]
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odt
in the matter of Vijay Karbhari Golhar and Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and connected appeals.
8. This Court has found that after the Full Bench decision in
Maya Sanjay Khandare (supra), the Apex Court had pronounced
judgment dated 29.09.2021 in Ramgopal (supra), which was
further affirmed by this Court in Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 5228 by the three Judges Bench of the
Apex court, wherein it was laid down as under :
"10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to
outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of RamGopal and
Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court
consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with
an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the
jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be construed as a
proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the
extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do
complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be,
after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the
victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash
proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional / inherent powers."
9. This Court in the aforesaid judgment was therefore pleased
to follow Apex Court decision in Ramgopal and Ramawatar
(supra), which was consistently followed by the Bombay High
Court in various other subsequent matters. The Court has
therefore set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed on 19.09.2011 in the
Sessions Case No.29/2009 and likewise in other identical appeals.
10. We have considered the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ramgopal (supra) which came to be followed by
[5]
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odt
three Judges Bench of this Court in Ramawatar (supra) and the
judgment of the Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No.568/2011.
We do not find any reason to take a different view, than that taken
by the Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal and the other
connected appeals. We are therefore, satisfied that the powers
under Section 482 are to be exercised in criminal proceeding
involving non-heinous offences and the proceedings can be
annulled irrespective of the fact that the trial has already been
concluded or the appeal stands dismissed against the conviction.
We also interacted with the Applicants and the Complainant who
are old aged ladies. The incident has occurred more than 24 years
ago and the incident was a fallout of a trivial issue, involving
allegations of an attempt to push the complainant into the well,
abusing her in the name of her caste. In our considered opinion,
we do not find the offence to be a heinous offence, which involves a
public element. Looking to the advanced age of the Applicants and
the Complainant who are present before this Court and with a
request to quash the proceeding so that they can live amicably in
the vicinity as neighbors, we intend to quash the conviction of the
Applicants in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by
accepting their compromise as stated in the application. Hence the
following order :
ORDER
a) The judgment and order dated 11.06.2003 passed by the
learned Sessions Court, Aurangabad in Special Case No.14/2001 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
b) The Criminal Application is allowed in the above terms and
58.Cri.Appln.2919-2024.odt
disposed of with no order as to costs.
[ MEHROZ K. PATHAN ] [ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
Najeeb..
