PRAVIN GAHININATH RANKHAMB AND OHTERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41570
                                                                         938wp767-26

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      938 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 767 OF 2026

                              Pravin Gahininath Rankhamb And Others
                                              VERSUS
                               The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                                 ...
            Mr. Kasat Rahul Kishanprasad, Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State
            Mr. Ramesh N. Dhakane, Advocate for Respondents


                                   CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                     Dated : 8th September, 2026
            PER COURT :-

            1.       Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned APP for

            the State and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.


            2.       The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the

            present writ petition arises out of the conviction order dated

            28.01.2020, wherein, the applicants have been convicted under

            Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

            Code passed by the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed in

            Regular Criminal Case No. 454 of 2015. He submits that against the

            said order, statutory appeal was filed before the learned District Judge,

            Beed by way of Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2020, in which an

            application was moved by the petitioners for compounding the offence.

            The said application came to be rejected by the learned Additional

            Sessions Judge, Beed, by order dated 07.02.2026, on the ground that



                                                                                1 of 4
                                                               938wp767-26

the offences are non-compoundable and that, at the stage where the

trial court is exercising statutory appellate powers, cannot compound

the said offences once the accused persons are convicted. The present

writ petition is, thus, filed on the ground of settlement between the

parties.


3.         The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the

parties have arrived at a joint settlement in which they have agreed to

resolve all the dispute among themselves. The parties are related to

each other and there was a standing dispute over the immovable

property. That property dispute has also been resolved amicably

between the parties and now they have decided to cohabit with each

other peacefully.      The parties        have appeared before the learned

Registrar (Judicial) and got themselves verified. The report to that

effect is also filed before this Court.


4.         The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 reiterates the

contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. He also

submits that the parties have settled the dispute and the respondent

No. 2 does not want that the petitioners be prosecuted any further for

the   offence that are levelled against them, which subsequently led to

conviction.


5.         The learned APP, however, strongly opposes the petition by

stating that a private complaint has led into a trial and subsequently,

                                                                     2 of 4
                                                             938wp767-26

the petitioners were found guilty and were convicted by the trial court.

The petitioners have already preferred the statutory appeal and

therefore the quashing proceedings, at this stage, on the ground of

settlement, will not be in accordance with law. He prays for dismissal of

the petition.


6.       I have taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions of

the learned Advocates for the parties. The record shows that though

the offences alleged are bodily injuries, yet, the dispute over which the

offence is alleged to have been committed is a civil dispute among the

relatives. This brings the dispute into    the framework of a private

dispute. The joint pursis noting the compromise specifically states that

as the parties are related to each other and they have amicably settled

the dispute over the property itself, now there is least possibility that

there will be any differences and they have decided to cohabit

peacefully.



7.       Taking into consideration the nature of offence and the

compromise between the parties, I am inclined to allow the present

Petition, however, subject to payment of costs by all the parties in the

present petition i.e. four petitioners and respondent no.2. Hence, the

following order:-




                                                                    3 of 4
                                                                        938wp767-26

                                           ORDER


           (i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.


           (ii)    The judgment and order dated 28.01.2020, in respect of the

                   conviction of the petitioners under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506

                   of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned 2 nd Judicial

                   Magistrate First Class, Beed in Regular Criminal Case No. 454 of

                   2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequentially, Criminal

                   Appeal No. 25 of 2020 pending on the file of learned Sessions

                   Judge, Beed is also quashed and set aside.


           (iii)   The petitioners and respondent no.2 shall pay cost of

                   Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, to be deposited

                   with the District Government Cancer Hospital, Chhatrapati

                   Sambhajinagar.


           (iv)    The order will take its effect from the date of submission of the

                   receipt of payment from both the sides to the Registry of this

                   Court. The acknowledgment receipt of payment shall be the part

                   of the proceeding. The cost to be paid within a period of four

                   weeks from today.




                                                       (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                               4 of 4