Allowed

Bellappa S/O. Digambar Limbhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2019WP/257/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition under Article 226, the Bombay High Court permitted the parties to compound a non-compoundable offence of voluntarily causing hurt. The court quashed the lower appellate order rejecting the compromise and set aside the conviction due to the close relationship between relatives.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the order rejecting compromise was quashed; the application to compound was granted; and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Bellappa S/O. Digambar Limbhare Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

cwp257.19

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.257 OF 2019

¶6

Shri Bellappa s/o Digambar Limbhare,
Age-35 years, Occu:Agri.,
R/o-Appawadi, Mitmita,
Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

2) Asha w/o Rudrappa Limbhare,
 Age-35 years, Occu:Agril.,
 R/o-Appawadi, Mitmita,

¶11

 Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

...

¶14

 Mr.Kakasaheb B. Jadhav Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.Shivaji N. Dudhate Advocate for Respondent
 No.2

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM: V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

¶17

 DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2019

¶18

JUDGMENT :

¶19

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶20

heard finally with the consent of the learned

¶21

cwp257.19

¶22

¶23

counsel for the parties. Heard Shri K.B. Jadhav,
the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri S.Y.
Mahajan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State and Shri S.N. Dudhate, the learned
counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶24

2.By the present Petition, the Petitioner
is challenging the order passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad dated 26th
September, 2011, below Exhibit-18 in Criminal
Appeal No.128 of 2011, whereby the learned lower
appellate Court has rejected the application for
permission to compromise the matter.

¶25

3.Prosecution was initiated against the
present Petitioner on the report lodged by
Respondent No.2 - Asha Limbhare. The Investigating
Officer, after investigation of the crime, filed
charge-sheet in the Court of learned Magistrate
and the case was registered against the present
Petitioner as R.C.C. No.808 of 2010. The charge

¶26

cwp257.19

¶27

¶28

was framed against the Petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 447, 324, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, on 28th
April, 2011, after full-fleged trial, found the
Petitioner guilty of committing offence under
Section 324, 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code and
accordingly he was directed to suffer jail
sentence for six months.

¶29

4.The Petitioner, thereafter, preferred an

¶30

appeal before the Sessions Court, challenging his
conviction. The said appeal is registered as
Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2011. During the
pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner as well as
Respondent No.2, the original complainant, filed
an application below Exhibit-18 for compromising
the matter. The said application is rejected.

¶31

5.From the perusal of the Judgment

¶32

delivered by the learned Magistrate, he found

¶33

injuries on both the hands of Asha and on her

¶34

cwp257.19

¶35

¶36

right leg. It is to be observed here that the
Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are close relatives
and the request was made to compromise, for
leading peaceful life in future.

¶37

6.The learned Court below, has rejected the
application for compromise, on the ground that the
offence is not compoundable.

¶38

7. True it is, that the offence is not

¶39

compoundable, however, it is noticed that the
Petitioner and Respondent No.2, they are very
close relatives. Further, the injuries were also
found to be simple in nature. In order to bury all
the disputes and in order that the parties to lead

¶40

a peaceful life, in my view, this Court can
exercise its jurisdiction to set aside the order
passed by the lower appellate Court and permit the
parties to compound the offence. Resultantly, I
pass following order:-

¶41

cwp257.19

¶42

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

(I) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶45

(II) The order passed by Additional
Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad, dated 26th
September, 2011 passed below Exhibit-18
in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2011, is
hereby quashed and set aside.

¶46

(III) Application Exhibit-18 filed by
the present Petitioner and Respondent
No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2011,
before the Additional Sessions Judge-2,
Aurangabad, is hereby granted.

¶47

(IV) Consequently, the Judgment and
order of conviction passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
(12thCourt), Aurangabad, in R.C.C.
No.808 of 2010, convicting and
sentencing the Petitioner for the

¶48

cwp257.19

¶49

¶50

offence punishable under Section 324,
506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, is
hereby quashed and set aside.

¶51

(V) Rule made absolute in above terms.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of,
accordingly.

¶52

 [V.M. DESHPANDE, J.]

¶53

asb/MAR19

Bellappa S/O. Digambar Limbhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bellappa S/O. Digambar Limbhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandranna S/O Mallanna Gadicharla Vs State of Mah. through Pso P.S. Pratap Nagar, Nagpur and Others

Arvind S/O. Namdev Rathod Vs Sunita Arvind Rathod

Rajabhau Dadarao Muratkar Vs the Khamgaon Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Khamgaon, Amravati and Others

Shivaji Kadu Chinchole Vs Champalal Bhagwan Borse and Ors.

M/S. Jark Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Jamnagar through Its Manager Sagar Singhal S/O. Vedprakash Singhal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harun Khan Jarwar Khan Pathan Vs State of Mah and Ors.