[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kanifnath Pandharinath Nimse And Other vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 4 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:5121-DB
APEAL-306-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 306 OF 2023
WITH APPLN/1501/2023 AND APPLN/2972/2025 IN APEAL/306/2023
1. Ganesh Baban Nimse
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agri.,
2. Subhash Trimbak Nimse
Age: 67 years, Occu.: Agri.,
3. Macchindra Subhash Nimse
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Agri.,
4. Jalindar Subhash Nimse
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agri.,
5. Jitendra Shivaji Nimse
Age: 26 years, Occu.: Agri.,
6. Nanda Sunil Nimse
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri.,
7. Shivaji Sonyabapu Nimse
Age: 47 years, Occu.: Agri.,
All R/o Nimse Vasti, Walunj,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2023
WITH APPLN/1500/2023 IN APEAL/308/2023
Kanifnath Pandharinath Nimse
Age: 40 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Nimse Vasti, Walunj,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1 / 11
APEAL-306-23.odt
State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector
Nagar Taluka Police Station,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENT
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4695 OF 2025
1. Kanifnath Pandharinath Nimse
Age: 41 years, Occu.: Service,
2. Ganesh Baban Nimse
Age: 34 years, Occu.: Agri.,
3. Subhash Trimbak Nimse
Age: 68 years, Occu.: Agri.,
4. Macchindra Subhash Nimse
Age: 68 years, Occu.: Agri.,
5. Jalindar Subhash Nimse
Age: 34 years, Occu.: Agri.,
6. Jitendra Shivaji Nimse
Age: 27 years, Occu.: Agri.,
7. Sunil Trimbak Nimse
Age: 58 years, Occu.: Agri.,
8. Nanda Sunil Nimse
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri.,
9. Shivaji Sonyabapu Nimse
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri.,
All R/o Nimse Vasti, Walunj,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Ashok Suresh Nimse
Age: 35 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Nimse Wasti, Waluj Shivar,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS
2 / 11
APEAL-306-23.odt
....
Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate for appellant in APEAL/306/23 and
APPLN/2972/25
Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for appellant in APEAL/308/23
Mr. S.S. Jadhav and Mr. R.P. Patwardhan, Advocates for applicant in
APPLN/4695/25
Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State
Mr. D.S. Ingole, Advocate for respondent no.2 in APPLN/4695/25
....
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
RESERVED ON : 30th JANUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 04th FEBRUARY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the respective counsels. Criminal Appeal Nos. 306 of 2023
and 308 of 2023 takes exception to the judgment passed by the District
Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 29th March, 2023
in Sessions Case No. 336 of 2016.
2. In Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2023, the appellants - Ganesh,
Subhash, Macchindra, Jalindar, Jitendra, Nanda and Shivaji have challenged
the conviction awarded for commission of offence punishable under Sections
307, 323, 324, 325, 506, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. The maximum punishment awarded
to them is of rigorous imprisonment for years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each.
Default sentence is also imposed.
3. In Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2023, the appellant - Kanifnath has
challenged the same judgment convicting him for commission of offences
APEAL-306-23.odt
mentioned hereinabove and sentence awarded is also the same as of other
accused. All the sentences imposed on the appellants were ordered to run
concurrently.
4. In Criminal Application No. 4695 of 2025, the appellants in both
the appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2023 and 308 of 2023 and Ashok
Suresh Nimse are parties. By way of said application, a request is made to
quash the judgment delivered by the trial Court i.e. District Judge - 1 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 336 of 2016. A
joint compromise deed dated 29th July, 2025 is also filed on record, wherein
similar request is made on the ground that both, the informant and accused,
being adult and since wanted to live with peace and harmony, decided to
settle the matter. It has been further stated that they have taken a vow to
reside in peace and harmony forever. They have, in fact, adopted forgive and
forgot policy. An undertaking was also given that they will not indulge into
any further dispute. A joint pursis dated 29 th July, 2025 is supported by an
affidavit of the applicants as well as Respondent No.2. Parties were present in
the Court and were duly identified by the respective counsels. It is further
necessary to mention here that an additional affidavit dated 28 th January,
2026 is also filed in Criminal Application No. 4695 of 2025 by Ashok Suresh
Nimse and Nilesh Suresh Nimse stating that since their parents viz. Mandabai
and Suresh were also injured in the incident in question and since their
APEAL-306-23.odt
parents suffered natural death during pendency of trial, they have no
objection if the conviction awarded to the accused/applicants is quashed. The
said additional affidavit is duly sworn by Ashok Suresh Nimse and Nilesh
Suresh Nimse.
5. One more affidavit dated 30th January, 2026 is filed by Popat
Suresh Nimse, who has stated that his parents Mandabai and Suresh were
injured in the incident, however during the pendency of the trial they suffered
natural death and he being their son, has no objection to quash the conviction
against the accused/applicants on the basis of compromise arrived between
them.
6. During the course of argument it was argued by Mr. Jadhav and
Mr. Narwade, learned counsels that the complainant and the injured parties
on one hand and the accused on the other hand are cousins and the manner
in which the incident had taken place would reveal that there was in fact no
premeditation. The respective counsels submitted that the applicants have no
criminal antecedents and they are peace loving and law abiding citizens. It
was argued that the offence committed is not the one which can show mental
depravity or was committed to disturb the public peace. They have stated
that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law.
APEAL-306-23.odt
7. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submitted that the injuries caused were
serious and considering the nature of weapons used and body part chosen,
this application may not be allowed and be dismissed.
8. I have gone through the record of the case. It is not disputed that
the parties have filed the compromise pursis on record by which they have
categorically stated that they have settled the matter due to intervention of
the elderly persons. They have adopted forgive and forget policy. They have
further stated that in fact the dispute involved was of private nature. In view
of the law laid down in case of Ramgopal and Another Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2022 (14) SCC 531, the criminal prosecution can be
quashed since there is absolutely no pressure on either of the parties or no
monetary settlement is involved. Since the appeal against conviction is
pending before this Court, the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be
exercised to quash the conviction.
9. At this stage it is necessary to mention that in order to satisfy
whether the compromise was genuine or whether pressure was mounted, on
the last occasion in the Court with the help of counsels it was enquired with
Nilesh Suresh Nimse and others, who have categorically stated that they have
in fact no grudge against each other and have no objection if conviction
imposed on accused is quashed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments
APEAL-306-23.odt
has observed that while quashing the conviction, certain factors are to be
taken into consideration which include nature and effect of offence on the
conscious of society, seriousness of injury, if any; voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the victim and conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or
other relevant considerations.
10. As already stated, there is nothing on record to show that the
offence in question had occurred due to a systematic planning and was with
an intention to disturb the public order. The offence further cannot be called
as heinous. The injured are now living the normal life and all the parties are
residing in the same village. Further, the incident in question had occurred in
the year 2015 and thereafter till this date no complaint is made that any of
the parties have indulged into similar act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that
no purpose would be served if the judgment delivered by the trial Court
convicting the accused is allowed to stand. At this stage it is necessary to
observe the principle led down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various
judgments viz. State of Karnataka .vrs. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699, B.S.
Joshi .vrs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh [supra], Narinder
Singh .vrs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbhatbhai Aahir Oarbatbhai
Bhimsingbhai Kurmur (2017) 9 SCC 641, State of Madhya Pradesh .vrs.
Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688 , the following principles were
culled out :
APEAL-306-23.odt
"55. Though the above-noted authoritative pronouncements of the
Supreme Court have consistently laid down the broad principles
governing the exercise of power of the High Court under Section
482 of the Cr. PC for bringing an end to the criminal process, for
addressing the concerns noted at the outset and future guidance of
trial courts, some of the crucial ones may be flagged as under:--
(i) The inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court, as
recognized and preserved by Section 482 Cr. PC, is primarily to
"prevent abuse of the process of court" or to "otherwise secure the
ends of justice".
(ii) The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law, the
prime principle governing the exercise of inherent power being "to
do real, complete and substantial justice" for which the court
exists.
(iii) It is the duty of the court to give "adequate treatment to the
settlement between the parties" particularly in cases involving
compoundable offences, the exercise of inherent power of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however, not being inhibited in
case of non-compoundable offences though, for the latter category,
such power is to be "exercised sparingly and with caution".
(iv) If the criminal case has "overwhelmingly and predominantly
civil character", particularly if it arises out of "commercial"
(financial, mercantile, partnership or such other) transaction - and
this would include the "cheque bouncing cases" under Section 138
N.I. Act - or "matrimonial dispute" or "family dispute", genuine
resolution on equitable terms, in entirety, by the parties should
result in criminal proceedings being quashed.
(v) Since the institution of marriage has an important role to play
in the society, the court is to make every effort to encourage the
APEAL-306-23.odt
parties to terminate such discord amicably and if it appears that
elements of settlement exist, and the parties are willing, they are
to be directed to the process of mediation toexplore the possibility
of settlement, it being desirable to do so even at the "pre-litigation
stage".
(vi) While examining the prayer for quashing of a non
compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute
between the wrongful doer and the victim, the High Court is to
bear in mind as to whether the possibility of conviction is "remote
and oblique" and further, if the continuation of the criminal case
would lead to "oppression and prejudice" or "extreme injustice" for
the accused.
(vii) The considerations which would weigh with Court include the
antecedents of the accused, possible lack of bona fides, his past
conduct and that includes the question as to whether he had
earlier absconded and as to how he had managed with the
complainant to enter into a compromise.
(viii) But, the High Court, when called upon to exercise the power
under Section 482 Cr. PC to bring the criminal case to an end on
the basis of settlement, must steer clear of intervention in
"heinous" or "serious" offences, including those involving "mental
depravity", as indeed "economic offences" affecting "the financial
and economic wellbeing of the State", such as murder, attempt to
murder, extortion, forgery, rape, dacoity, financial or economic
frauds, cases under Arms Act, etc., the reason being that such
offences are "not private in nature" but have "a serious impact
upon society", and continuation of trial thereof is essential due to
"overriding element of public interest".
APEAL-306-23.odt
(ix) The court, however, is not to go by mere use of label of a
serious offence (e.g. offence under Section 307 IPC), it being open
to it to examine, by scrutiny of the evidence gathered, to find as to
whether there are sufficient grounds to frame charge for such
offence and, in this view, it being "not permissible" to intervene till
the matter has been properly investigated."
11. In view of the aforesaid principles, I find that the compromise
arrived at between the parties is without any pressure or coercion, and
therefore, following order is passed :-
ORDER
(I) The judgment dated 29th March, 2023 passed by the District
Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in
Sessions Case No. 336 of 2016 convicting the appellants /
accused persons is set aside.
(II) The appellants are acquitted for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 506, 147,
148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4
and 25 of the Arms Act.
(III) So far as acquittal of the appellants in Sessions Case No. 336
of 2016 is concerned, same is not disturbed.
(IV) Fine amount deposited by the appellants in both the appeals
shall be confiscated to the government.
(V) The appellants in both the appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.
306 of 2023 and 308 of 2023 are directed to deposit cost of
APEAL-306-23.odt
Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh) within a week from today
with the Registry of this Court and file pursis on record
accordingly.
(VI) The Registry of this Court, on deposit of the said cost, is
directed to transfer Rs.2,00,000/- to the High Court Legal
Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, Rs.2,00,000/- to the
Government Cancer Hospital, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
(VII) Both the appeals and applications stands disposed of
accordingly.
(VIII) List the matter on 09th February, 2026 for compliance.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SSD
