Bombay High Court
Musa Sherkha Pathan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 8 September, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:24200-DB
9-CRIWP-1958-24.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1958 OF 2024
Musa Sherkha Pathan,
Age:43 Years, Occ: Labour,
R/o . Kotambwadi,
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani. ... Petitioner
(Original Accused)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, New Mondha,
Parbhani.
2. ShaikhRafig Shaikh Chand,
Age: 35 Years, Occ.: Business,
R/0.: Kotambwadi,
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani. .... Respondents
......
Mr. Saeed S. Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant (Through OnLine)
Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1 - State
Mr. S.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 08 SEPTEMBER, 2025
PER COURT :-
1. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the
judgment and order dated 06.07.2019 passed in R.C.C. No. 829 of 2011
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Parbhani,
convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
9-CRIWP-1958-24.odt
{2}
420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The said conviction is
under challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2019, pending before the
learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner as well as learned advocate
for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 had filed a private
complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and after
recording the evidence and hearing the submissions, the learned
Magistrate held the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. For each of the offences,
separate sentences were awarded, the maximum of which is three years.
The total fine imposed is Rs.35,000/-. As regards the fine amount is
concerned, the order was also passed directing that the said sum of Rs.
35,000/- be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section
357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said conviction is under
challenge, however, with the intervention of elderly persons from
society, the complainant and the petitioner/accused have entered into
compromise. The petitioner accepts that he has already handed over
the vacant possession of the disputed plot to petitioner No.2. However,
on the last occasion, a query was raised as to how this could be possible
when there are allegations that, by a subsequent sale deed, the same
plot was sold by the petitioner to a third party. It was then stated that
9-CRIWP-1958-24.odt
{3}
the petitioner has cancelled the sale deed executed by him in favour of
the third party, namely, Ashok Sundar Rathod. Therefore, by order
dated 11.08.2025, we have directed the parties to produce the
document of cancellation of Sale Deed No. 6511 of 2011. Accordingly,
the petitioner has filed the cancellation deed dated 09.02.2021,
executed between the petitioner and Ashok Rathod. A copy of the said
document has been taken on record. This ensures that the rights of
respondent No.2 are protected.
3. The learned APP strongly opposes the compromise on the ground
that the fine amount has not been paid by the petitioner, and that the
learned Trial Court has held that a fabricated document was prepared,
which is a serious offence. It is therefore submitted that the compromise
need not to be accepted for setting aside a conviction recorded on
merits.
4. Though the conviction was on merits, it is still the subject matter
of a criminal appeal pending before the learned Sessions Judge,
Parbhani. In Ramavtar v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 966, such settlement can be considered for quashing the conviction
and the proceedings. Here, it is to be noted that the present case arises
out of a private complaint and the right that was agitated was in a way
personal to the complainant. No doubt, a second sale deed was
9-CRIWP-1958-24.odt
{4}
executed; however, whether it amounts to creation of a false document
and whether all the ingredients of the offence are attracted, is still the
subject matter of the appeal. Now, legal recourse has been adopted by
cancelling the second sale deed and thereby confirming the first sale
deed, which was executed in favour of the complainant. Since the
complainant is now getting a clear title, the complainant would be
justified in giving consent for quashing the conviction and the
proceedings. Therefore, we accept the same.
5. The petitioner has not produced on record the evidence to show
that the fine amount was deposited by him. On perusal of the copy of
the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge, it is seen that
there is an endorsement by the Nazir of the C.J.M. Court, Parbhani,
dated 06.07.2019, stating that the fine amount has not been paid. Even
then, as we are accepting the settlement and setting aside the
conviction, there is no necessity for payment of fine. However, as the
entire machinery has been used, we would imposed costs on the
petitioner. Respondent number 2 is not praying for any compensation
now. In such circumstances, costs of Rs. 35000/- is required to be
imposed on the petitioner while accepting the settlement.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:
9-CRIWP-1958-24.odt
{5}
ORDER
(i) The criminal writ petition stands allowed.
(iii) The conviction awarded to the petitioner by the judgment
and order dated 06.07.2019 in R.C.C. No. 829 of 2011,
passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.2),
Parbhani, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,
468 and 471 of the IPC, stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) The proceedings in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2019, pending
before the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, stand
disposed of. The petitioner stands acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the
IPC upon deposit of costs of Rs.35,000/- with the High
Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Bench at Aurangabad,
within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of
this order. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
deposit the said amount, the same shall be recovered from
him as arrears of land revenue.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane
