Bombay High Court

DHANRAJ NARSINGHDAS PALLODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that a victim’s settlement and supplementary statement justify allowing the application even though the offence under Section 409 IPC is non‑compoundable.

Summary

The applicant, Dhanraj Narsinghdas Pallod, sought relief on the ground that the victim had settled the dispute and recorded a supplementary statement indicating receipt of the amount, despite the charge being under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, which is non‑compoundable. The State opposed, arguing that the applicant faces multiple offences and that the offence is against society, not merely the individual victim. The court noted that there was no dispute about the settlement and that the victim’s statement effectively removed the personal element of the offence. It held that the non‑compoundable nature of Section 409 does not preclude the court from allowing the application where the victim has expressly compromised. Consequently, the application was allowed as per the prayer clauses B and B1.

Issues considered

Can a compromise between the victim and accused lead to quashing of proceedings for an offence under Section 409 IPC, which is non‑compoundable?
Does the existence of multiple offences against the accused bar consideration of a settlement in a particular case?
Whether the court may allow the application despite the non‑compoundable nature of the offence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 409

Subjects

compromise
non‑compoundable offence
Section 409 IPC
criminal application
quash
settlement
victim's statement

Judgment

                                 -1-
                                                    criappln111.23.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           935 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2023

Dhanraj Narsinghdas Pallod                        ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others                  …..Respondents
…..
Ms. A. P. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for
Applicant
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State.

                               CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                               DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.       Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that order dated

05.01.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur, below

Exhibit 9 in RCC No. 1481/2021 indicates that the victim has

compromised the issue with the Applicant herein. According to her,

it is only for the reason that the offence under Section 409 of Indian

Penal Code is non-compoundable, no further order was passed. She

further argues that the dispute in question is personal in nature and

as such in view of compromise, there is no impediment in allowing

the application. She places reliance on order passed by the Division

Bench of this Court dated 28.01.2025 in Criminal Application No.

93/2023 quashing the proceeding in Crime No. 535/2021.              She
                                 -2-
                                                  criappln111.23.odt

further submits that supplementary statement recorded by the

investigating agency supports the case of the Applicant about

compromise between the parties.



2.    Learned APP opposed the application by contending that this is

not the only crime against the present Applicant and he is involved in

similar 4 crimes. It is his submission that in such circumstances,

offence cannot be considered against an individual but against the

society at large.



3.    There is no dispute about the fact that the parties have arrived

at settlement.      This is appearing from the order passed by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 05.01.2022.       Even if it is

accepted that there are multiple offences registered against the

present Applicant, once the victim has recorded supplementary

statement mentioning that he has already received the amount, one

can imagine the fate of the trial if the trial is required to be

conducted. Needless to say that the offence in question is against in

individual, who does not wish to proceed further against the

Applicant. A such, this Court finds no justification in not allowing

the application.
                                -3-
                                                  criappln111.23.odt



4.    In view of the above, application is allowed in terms of prayer

clauses ‘B’ and ‘B1’.



                                               ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…