BASAVRAJ HAVANNA SAMANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38686


                                                *1*                      965rev139o21


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2021
                              BASAVRAJ HAVANNA SAMAN
                                           VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                               ...
                Shri Kore Ganesh J., Advocate for the Applicant.
                Mrs. B.B. Gunjal, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                                               ...


                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   DATE : 25 August 2026


                P. C. :-

                1.          The applicant has challenged the judgment and order

                dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

                Judge, Omerga, in Criminal Appeal No.23/2018 thereby,

                dismissing the said appeal filed by the applicant and confirming

                the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.03.2018 passed by

                the learned JMFC, Omerga, in RCC No.55/2015 convicting the

                applicant/ accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section

                354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer

                rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-

                and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
                                 *2*                      965rev139o21


2.            When this matter was called out yesterday, the

applicant/ accused as well as the informant were present in

person. Learned advocate for the applicant has tendered the

following documents:-


      (a)     Notarized affidavit dated 24.08.2026 sworn in by the

informant stating therein that Shanubai Vasant Rathod and

Shantabai Vasant Rathod are the names of same person i.e.

herself. Her name as per Aadhar Card is Shanubai Vasant Rathod,

however, at the time of registration of crime, her name was

recorded as Shantabai Vasant Rathod.


      (b)     Joint application on behalf of the applicant/ accused

and the informant for taking the compromise/ settlement terms

on record, dated 24.08.2026.


      (c)     Affidavit of the informant/ complainant dated

24.08.2026.


3.            It is stated that during pendency of this matter, the

parties have compromised the matter and the informant has not

no grievance against the applicant/ accused. The dispute between

the applicant and the informant has been finally settled, there is
                                    *3*                      965rev139o21


no personal grievance against each other and as such, the

informant is not interested in prosecuting the applicant further.

The informant has also given no objection for taking this

compromise on record and granting relief to the applicant in the

instant revision.


4.              It is stated that both the applicant and informant are

staying in the same village and their differences have now been

resolved and both of them are desirous to maintain peace and

harmony. Therefore, no purpose would be served if the applicant

is convicted.


5.              The above three documents are taken on record and

marked as ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘Z’, respectively for the purpose of

identification.


6.              Since the parties have settled the dispute, this Court

is of the view that the matter can be disposed of in accordance

with the terms of compromise.             However, the learned APP

opposed the settlement. According to learned APP, crime is

serious and took place against woman residing in rural area.

Crime being against the society, may not be permitted to be

compromised as same is not compoundable.
                                 *4*                       965rev139o21


7.           Crime took place in the year 2015. On the basis of

the report lodged by the informant, the crime was registered and

the applicant was tried and came to be convicted. His appeal

against conviction is also dismissed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge vide impugned order. Since the parties have

settled the dispute amicably and they are residing in same village

peacefully, it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter

considering the settlement between the parties.


8.           It is true that the offence punishable under Section

354 of the Indian Penal Code is not ordinarily compoundable.

However, the present exercise is not one of permitting

composition of a non-compoundable offence in disregard of the

statutory provision. The High Court, in an appropriate case, can

exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice,

even where the offence is non-compoundable. In the present

case, the incident is of the year 2015; the parties are residents of

the same village and have voluntarily settled their dispute. The

informant is personally present before the Court and has filed an

affidavit unequivocally stating that the dispute has been amicably

resolved and that she has no objection to the applicant being
                                       *5*                       965rev139o21


      granted relief. Upon interaction with the informant, this Court is

      satisfied that the settlement is voluntary and without coercion or

      undue influence. Having regard to the nature and circumstances

      of the case, the considerable passage of time, the subsequent

      settlement between the parties and the fact that the continuance

      of the conviction would not serve any useful purpose in the

      peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that

      interference with the impugned orders would secure the ends of

      justice.


      9.           In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision

      Application is allowed in view of the compromise terms between

      the parties. The impugned judgments and orders are quashed and

      set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the said charge. The

      applicant is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled and the surety,

      if any, stands discharged. The find amount, if deposited, be

      refunded to the applicant. The record and proceedings be sent

      back to the concerned Court.




kps                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )