Raju vs The State Of Maharashtra

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 24/07/2003, passed by the learned III rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No.50/2002. Vide the said judgment dated 24/07/2003, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, three months simple imprisonment. He was further convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, two months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

At the outset, learned Advocates for the respective parties, point out that, during the pendency of this appeal, the informant and victim/injured have compromised the matter with the accused/appellant. They have placed on record pursis as regards compromise terms agreed between the appellant, complainant and injured. The said compromise pursis states that the parties are residing in the same village and they have brotherly relationship. The informant as well as the injured do not want to proceed further with this appeal against the accused/appellant, as they have resolved their dispute in between them and compromised the matter. The complainant and victim have stated that, the matter is settled between the parties and they are residing happily and the the criminal cases instituted by the family members of the appellant as well as the present deponents have already been compromised. Therefore, the deponents have given consent to allow the instant appeal filed by the appellant.

Mr Salunke, learned Advocate for the informant/injured has tendered a copy of the judgment delivered on 07/05/2026 in Criminal Case bearing Criminal Appeal No.113/2025 and Criminal Appeal No.1147/2026 (Syed Ahmed and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), wherein this Court, on the basis of compromise terms agreed between the appellant/victim, has allowed the said Criminal Appeal, in which the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Relying on the said judgment, Mr Salunke submits that the instant appeal can be allowed, as no purpose would be served by convicting the appellant.

Learned APP for respondent/State, however, strongly opposes the appeal on the ground that offence is serious. According him, crime committed by the appellant is against the society and the parties cannot settle the matter between them. He further submits that, considering the nature of offences to be serious, the prayer for allowing the appeal may not be granted. He, therefore, prays for rejection of this appeal.

I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the pursis as regards compromise terms agreed between the parties placed before this Court. In the numerous rulings and judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that, to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice, it is duty of Court to give adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties, particularly, in cases involving compoundable offences. However, in the cases of non-compoundable offences, the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised sparingly and with caution. It was further observed that, while examining the prayer of quashing of a non-compoundable offence, on the basis of settlement of the dispute between accused and victim, the High Court is to bear in mind, as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and oblique and further, if the continuation of criminal case would lead to oppression and prejudice or extreme injustice to the accused.

This Court, while considering the aspect that, whether a non-compoundable offence can be permitted to be compounded by virtue of compromise between the parties under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has observed in Criminal Appeal No.113/2025 (supra), relied upon by learned Advocate Mr Salunke that, the compromise between the parties can be considered and the accused can be discharged.

In pursuance to the aforesaid submissions and rulings given by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, I am of the view that the instant appeal can be allowed. Hence, I pass following order :-

The criminal appeal is allowed.

The judgment and order of conviction dated 24/07/2003, passed by the learned III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No.50/2002 is hereby quashed and set aside.

The appellant stands acquitted. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

The fine amount deposited, if any, by the appellant, shall be confiscated to the Government.

The appellant shall deposit costs of Rs.15,000/- in this Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this order. The said amount be given to the Library of the Government Pleader’s office of this Court.