MUSTAFA GAFURSAAB TAPPEWALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:40475




                                                    -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       923 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 59 OF 2022

                                     MUSTAFA GAFURSAAB TAPPEWALE
                                                VERSUS
                                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

              Mr.Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for the Applicant.
              Ms.B.B.Gunjal, APP for the Respondent/State.
              Mr.Vishnu Kande, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (original informant)

                                      ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

                                         DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :


              1.                 The Applicant has challenged the order dated 10.02.2022

              passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, wherein the

              Criminal Appeal No.15/2009 came to be dismissed.              In the said

              Criminal appeal, the judgment and order dated 16.03.2009 convicting

              the Applicant in STC No.23/2008 for the offence punishable u/s 279 of

              the IPC and u/s 304-A of the IPC, was challenged. The Applicant has

              been sentenced to suffer SI for 3 months for the offence punishable u/s

              279 of the IPC, whereas u/s 304 of the IPC, he has been sentenced to

              suffer SI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of

              payment of fine, to suffer SI for 3 months.


              khs/Sept.2026/59
                                        -2-

2.                 This   Criminal   Revision   Application   was   listed   on

18.02.2022 on which date, the substantive sentence as referred above

was suspended. Thereafter the matter was listed for final hearing today.

During the course of hearing, the learned Advocate for the Applicant

submits that the informant, who is the son of deceased Ramkishan has

compromised the matter and as such not interested in pursuing the

instant Criminal Revision Application, and therefore accused and the

informant have submitted the compromise terms, which have been

tendered during the course of hearing.           Since, the informant is not a

party here, therefore, he is directed to be added as party respondent.

Necessary correction be carried out forthwith. The compromise terms

are also taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for the purpose of

identification. The newly added informant Sandip Ramkishan Panchal

has been identified as he is possessing the Aadhar Card alongwith him.

The compromise terms discloses that in view of the past good relations

of the Applicant as well as informant and to maintain good relations

between them in future, the Applicant and the original informant have

decided to put an end to the litigation. Therefore, meetings took place

between them and their relatives at their native place and accordingly

the informant and the relatives of the deceased have agreed to settle


khs/Sept.2026/59
                                       -3-

the dispute.         It is further submitted that the Applicant is now aged

about 68 years.         Looking to his old age, the relatives of the deceased

and the informant have decided to settle the dispute.


3.                 However, the fact remains that the Applicant came to be

convicted u/s 304-A of the IPC. The same not being the compoundable

offence, therefore, the learned Advocate for the Applicant relies upon

the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Puttuswami Vs. State of

Karnataka [2009 AIR SCW 1744], the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said

verdict in an identical case, has permitted the parties to compromise the

dispute, thereby maintaining the conviction, however, the fine amount

came to be increased. In another judgment relied upon by the learned

Advocate for the Applicant, on the judgment delivered in Criminal Writ

Petition No.3163/2023 (Anandraj Manikam and another Vs. The State

of Maharashtra and another) dated 18.10.2023 by the Principal Seat of

this Court, wherein in an identical accident matter, the accused has

been directed to pay the fine amount and accordingly accused have

paid fine amount and the matter was disposed off accepting the

compromise terms between the parties.




khs/Sept.2026/59
                                        -4-

4.                 Thus in view of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that

Section 304-A of the IPC is punishable for a term which may extend

upto 2 years or with fine or with both. When the parties have arrived

at a compromise and they are not intending to prosecute further the

accused persons in that event, the Hon’ble Court have disposed of the

matters by accepting the compromise terms.


5.                 In that view of the matter, the conviction of the Applicant

under Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC is maintained.               However,

instead of sending him to jail, the substantive sentence of imprisonment

is set aside. Instead, the Applicant is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-

to be deposited in the Trial Court within 2 (two) weeks from today,

apart from the fine amount.          The Applicant is further directed to pay

the costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Government Pleaders’ Library, within a

period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order.



6.                 In view of the above, the application stands disposed of in

terms of compromise.           The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.   The

sureties furnished, if any, stand discharged.


                                            ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)


khs/Sept.2026/59