NASHIRODDIN @ NOOR SHABBIR BAGWANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42001
                                                                        925.REVN.13.2022.doc



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2022

          Nashiroddin @ Noor Shabbir Bagwan                          ...Applicant

                   Versus

          The State of Maharashtra and Another                       ...Respondents

                                             ***
           Mr. Bhosle Abhaysinh K., Advocate for the Applicant.
           Mr. Bharati B. Gunjal, APP for Respondent – State.
           Mr. Amol A. Pawar h/f Mr. S. G. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent
           No.2.
                                             ***

                                                 CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
                                                 DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.                  Heard Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr.

          Pawar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, and Ms.

          Gunjal, learned APP appearing for Respondent–State.


          2.                  Today, the Applicant as well as Respondent No.2 are

          present in person before this Court. They have been identified by their

          respective learned counsel. They have submitted the affidavit of

          Respondent No.2. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked as

          “X” for the purpose of identification.



          Shrikant Malani                                                        Page 1 of 4
                                                             925.REVN.13.2022.doc



3.                As per the said affidavit, Respondent No.2 states that she

and the Applicant are residing in the same locality and are well

acquainted with each other since long. Respondent No.2 states that the

complaint was filed against the Applicant in a revengeful manner.

Respondent No.2 states that she is ready to waive all the allegations

levelled against the Applicant and has no objection if the revision

application is allowed. She further states that at the instance of

reputed persons and elders of the village, both the parties have arrived

at an amicable settlement and both the parties have decided to

maintain cordial and harmonious relations amongst themselves and,

therefore, in short, Respondent No.2 has given her no objection for

allowing the instant revision application.


4.                Per contra, Mrs. Gunjal, learned APP, strongly opposes the

instant arrangement made by the parties by way of compromise. She

states that the State machinery was put into action and the complaint

was filed in the year 2014. The State has suffered considerable

expenses in investigating as well as prosecuting the Applicant–

Accused. She further submits that the instant crime was not only

against a woman but also against the society and the instant crime

may not be compounded. She further submits that, if this Court is

Shrikant Malani                                                       Page 2 of 4
                                                           925.REVN.13.2022.doc



willing to accept the compromise, some costs may be imposed on the

parties.


5.                The Applicant was prosecuted vide R.C.C. No.232 of 2015

in view of Crime No. I-247 of 2014 registered with MIDC Cidco Police

Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 452,

354, 354-B, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860. The said crime was registered against two accused persons,

including the Applicant; however, the other accused person was

acquitted. The Applicant was convicted by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, vide order dated 05 th July 2017

passed in R.C.C. No.232 of 2015. The Applicant thereafter preferred an

Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2017 and the same also came

to be dismissed. Now, the Applicant has preferred this Revision

Application challenging the said judgments and orders passed by the

subordinate Courts, and now the parties have settled the matter. This

Court feels that there is no difficulty in accepting the compromise

between the parties since Respondent No.2 was the complainant and

victim and the compromise has been arrived at after a period of almost

eight years. Since the compromise is tendered before this Court and

Respondent No.2 is having no objection to allowing the instant

Shrikant Malani                                                     Page 3 of 4
                                                              925.REVN.13.2022.doc



Criminal Revision Application, hence, the instant Criminal Revision

Application is allowed with costs.


6.                The judgments and orders passed by the learned

subordinate Courts are hereby quashed and set aside. The Applicant is

acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354-B,

323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.


7.                The Applicant is directed to pay costs of ₹ 15,000/- to the

High Court Dispensary within a period of two weeks from today.


8.                The Criminal Revision Application is allowed in the above

terms.


                                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )




Shrikant Malani                                                        Page 4 of 4