Bombay High Court
MANOJ SURESH PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The conviction under Section 279 of the IPC is quashed and the applicant is acquitted.
Summary
Manoj Suresh Patil was convicted by a JMFC for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC arising from a 2014 road accident. The Additional Sessions Court acquitted him of the compoundable offences (337 and 338) on the basis of a compromise, but upheld the conviction under Section 279, a non‑compoundable offence, and sentenced him to one month imprisonment, of which he served 15 days and was subsequently dismissed from MSRTC service. He filed a criminal revision seeking quashal of the Section 279 conviction, arguing that the compromise should extend to the non‑compoundable charge and that he had already suffered the penalty. The State opposed, contending that the offence was serious and society’s interest precluded any compromise. The High Court observed that Section 279 is non‑compoundable, but noted that the applicant had already undergone part of the sentence and lost his employment, and therefore set aside the conviction. Consequently, the applicant was acquitted of Section 279 and the revision application was disposed of by quashing the conviction.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise between parties can affect the conviction for a non‑compoundable offence under Section 279 IPC.
- Whether the conviction under Section 279 can be set aside after the appellant has served part of the sentence and faced service termination.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 279, 337, 338
Subjects
- criminal law
- compoundable offence
- non‑compoundable offence
- IPC Section 279
- revision
- acquittal
- sentencing
- service termination
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41371
(1) 947crirevn91.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
947 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 91 OF 2022
Manoj Suresh Patil
….Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
…..Respondent
Mr. C. C. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant
Mrs. B. B. Gunjal, APP for the respondents/State
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
DATE : 04th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the
learned APP.
2. The Applicant is challenging the judgment and order
dated 20-06-2017. The Applicant was prosecuted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC vide SCC No.
221/2015 before the learned JMFC, Aurangabad. The learned trial
Court was pleased to convict the Applicant for the offences punishable
under Sections 279 & 338 and sentencing him to suffer one month
simple imprisonment under both the sections. Thereafter, the
Applicant has filed the Appeal No.110/2023 before the learned
Additional Sessions Court, Aurangabad. The learned Sessions Court
1 of 4
(2) 947crirevn91.22
though acquitted the Applicant for the offences 337 & 338, confirmed
the sentence under Section 279. Hence, the Applicant has approached
this Court.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that there
was a compromise between the parties before the learned Sessions
Court. The learned Sessions Court while considering the said
compromise was pleased to acquit the Applicant for the offences
punishable under Sections 337 & 338 (with the permission of court-
compoundable). However, said compromise was not considered for
the purpose of offences under Section 279 of the IPC as same is non-
compoundable and accordingly maintained the conviction under
Section 279. He submits that the Applicant in pursuance to the
aforesaid conviction has already undergone the sentence of 15 days.
The incident is of 2014. The Applicant was a driver in the MSRTC.
After the incident, the Applicant having been convicted was removed
from the service after holding the departmental enquiry. As such, right
now he is not in service of the Corporation. Therefore, he submits that
as the compromise took place between the parties, the Applicant be
acquitted from the offence under Section 279. Hence, he prays for
allowing the instant revision Application.
2 of 4
(3) 947crirevn91.22
4. Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the
Application. According to her, offence committed by the Applicant is
serious one due to which the informant and his wife have suffered
grave injuries. Though the compromise had taken place between the
parties, however, crime is against the society as such the said
compromise may not be considered at the stage of revision.
5. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties and gone
through the impugned orders passed by both the subordinate courts.
The offence is of 2014. The Applicant was a driver in MSRTC. While
overtaking another vehicle, the accident appears to have caused
thereby giving dash to the motorcycle of the informant. Due to which
the informant was thrown in Nala.
6. Learned Advocate for the Applicant fairly admits that
injuries were grievous.
7. The learned Sessions Court could accept the compromise
between the parties since section 337 & 338 are compoundable with
the permission of the Court as per Section 320(2) of the Cr. P. C. As
regards Section 279 of the IPC the learned Sessions Court, being
powerless, could not permit the parties to compound the said offence.
However, this Court finds that as the Applicant has undergone 15 days
imprisonment and has also been removed from service, therefore, the
3 of 4
(4) 947crirevn91.22
instant criminal Revision Application is disposed off by quashing and
setting aside the conviction under Section 279 of the IPC.
8. The Applicant is acquitted for the offence under Section
279 of the IPC.
9. The Criminal Revision Application is disposed off
accordingly.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ]
VishalK/947crirevn91.22
4 of 4
Checking your session…