Bombay High Court
HEMANT PRATAP VISSANJI AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the criminal proceedings under Section 304A were lawfully quashed because the parties had reached a valid settlement with full compensation, satisfying the requirements for compromise of a compoundable offence.
Summary
The applicant, Hemant Vissanji, sought to quash criminal proceedings under Section 304A IPC arising from the death of a complainant's son caused by a collapsing gate at the applicant's bungalow. The parties reconciled, with the complainant having previously accepted compensation of Rs.4,50,000 and subsequently agreeing to an additional payment of Rs.5,00,000 as recorded in a consent affidavit and Minutes of Order. The court examined whether such a settlement, documented and accepted by both parties, could serve as a lawful compromise to extinguish the criminal liability. Relying on the principle that offences punishable under Section 304A are compoundable upon the victim's consent and proper compensation, the court found the settlement sufficient to quash the case. Consequently, the criminal application was allowed, and the proceedings were set aside. The court also ensured the payment was handed over to the complainant through his advocate.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings under Section 304A IPC can be quashed on the basis of a settlement and compensation agreed upon by the parties.
- Whether the consent affidavit and payment constitute a valid compromise under the law.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 304A
Subjects
- Section 304A
- compromise
- settlement
- quash
- criminal proceedings
- compensation
- civil compromise
- criminal application
Judgment
50 apl 692 of 2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 692 OF 2017
1] Hemant Pratap Vissanji
(Deleted vide order dated
06.08.2026) .. Applicant
2] Arati Hemant Vissanji
Adult Indian Inhabitant, Aged 60
years,
R/at. 38, M.V. Bungalow, Near
Bina Apartment, Near Vancha
Siddhi Ganesh Mandir, M.V.
Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai.
Versus
1] State of Maharashtra
(Through Andheri Police Station)
2] Pandhari Mariappa Bhosale,
Adult Indian Inhabitant,
Aged 63 years, Occupation :
Agriculture.
3] Anusaya Pandhari Bhosale,
Adult Indian Inhabitant,
Aged 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
Both R/at. Chinegaon, Taluka –
Aurad (B), District : Bidar,
Karnataka – 485 443. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Subodh Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rohan Sonawane, Mr.
Rishir Daulat, Mr. Mohanish Patkar i/b. M/s. Desai and Desai
Associates, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for the Respondent No. 1 – State.
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
Mr. Suresh Shetye i/b. Ms. Prakruti Joshi, Advocate for Respondent
AHER Date:
2026.08.13 Nos. 2 and 3.
15:28:13
+0530
................…
1 of 8
50 apl 692 of 2017.odt
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 11, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Desai, Senior Advocate for the Applicant, Ms. Talhar,
learned APP for the Respondent No.1–State and Mr. Shetye, learned
Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. This Application is filed for seeking quashing of the criminal
proceedings initiated vide C.R.No. 598 of 2013, pending before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri,
Mumbai, dated 7th December, 2013.
3. Parties have reconciled the issue and have tendered Minutes of
Order. Briefly stated, son of the complainant was working as a
Gardener in the bungalow belonging to the Applicant and due to an
unfortunate incident, while opening the main gate of the bungalow,
the said gate collapsed and caused a fatal injury to the son of the
complainant. First Information Report (“FIR”, for short) was registered
against the Applicants and the Applicants voluntarily surrendered and
were released on bail.
4. Pursuant to the date of the incident much water has flown
below the bridge, which is evident from the fact that substantial
2 of 8
50 apl 692 of 2017.odt
compensation was given by way as stated in the consent affidavit
dated 11th August, 2026 of Rs. 4,50,000/- having been accepted by the
complainant at that time.
5. Today, when the matter is placed before the Court, the
complainant is present along with his wife, who are parents of the
deceased victim. I have personally interacted with them in open Court
and made them understand the contents of the affidavit, which was
filed through their Advocate Ms. Joshi. After I interacted with
Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Applicants, they have shown their humane side by agreeing to hand
over a further cheque/Demand Draft dated 6 th August, 2026 of Rs.
5,00,000/- in favour of Respondent No. 2, as a further compensatory
payment. I need to note over here that when the interaction with
Respondent No. 2 -Complainant and his wife took place, he informed
the Court that he was studied upto six standard, and what was stated
in the affidavit was duly understood by him as to he having accepted
and received Rs.4,50,000/- earlier. However, he also persuaded the
Court through his Advocate and he also spoke to the Court in Marathi
language to consider giving further compensation of upto
Rs.2,00,000/- in view of his two daughters, who are of marriageable
age. After having interacted with both the parties in the Court, Mr.
Desai after taking instructions from the Applicant No.2 present in
3 of 8
50 apl 692 of 2017.odt
Court apprised the Court that even though initially agreed to pay an
additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as requested by the
Complainants/parents of the deceased, the Applicants have decided to
give a further amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensatory benefit.
When this was disclosed to the Respondent No.2 by me in open Court,
he understood the same and agreed to accept the said compensation
and put a closure to the criminal proceedings. The interaction which
took place with Respondent No.2 in the open Court was in Marathi
language, which could be clearly understood by him. He is resident of
Bidar in Karnataka State and speaks Marathi language fluently. In that
view of the matter, the parties were therefore directed by this Court in
the morning Session to draw the Minutes of the Order (MoU) and
come to the Court in the afternoon session. The parties have placed
before the Court Minutes of Order dated 11 th August, 2026, which are
taken on record and marked, “X” for identification. The same is signed
by both the parties i.e. the Applicant, her Advocate, Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 and their Advocate. The statements made in the same are taken
as an undertaking to this Court. The Applicants have given the
Demand Draft (DD) of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Respondent No. 2. Copy of
the Minutes of Order and the DD/Banker’s cheque are scanned and
reproduced below for reference of parties.
4 of 8
50 apl 692 of 2017.odt
5 of 8
50 apl 692 of 2017.odt
6 of 8
50 apl 692 of 2017.odt
7 of 8
50 apl 692 of 2017.odt
6. Statements made in the Minutes of Order are taken as
undertaking given to the Court. The Criminal Application 692 of 2017
is allowed in view of the Minutes of Order in terms of prayer Clause
(a), which reads as under:
a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
the Criminal proceedings under Section 304 (a) of the
Indian Penal Code initiated vide CR. No. 598 of 2013,
pending on the file of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai at CC. NO.
460/PS/2014.”
7. The DD/Bankeer’s cheque is handed over to Respondent No.2
through his Advocate Mr. Shetye.
8. Needless to state that the Criminal Proceedings being CC N.
PS/08/00460/2014 arising out of C.R. No. 598 of 2013, registered
with Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri,
Mumbai, for offence punishable under Section 304 A of the Indian
Penal Code now stand quashed and set aside.
9. Criminal Application No. 692 of 2017 is allowed and disposed
of.
Rajeshri Aher [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
8 of 8
Checking your session…