1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 4182 of 2008 1. Devidas s/o Jalba Gite, Age: 43 years Occu: Agriculture, 2. Kisan s/o. Venkatrao Jadhav, Age: 38 years Occu: Agriculture. 3. Sayyadlal s/o Sayyad Karimsab, Age: 41 years Occu: Agriculture. All above r/o Chondi, Taluka Loha, Dist. Nanded. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Shivdas s/o Sambhaji Dhavale, Age: 40 years Occu: Agriculture, r/o. Chondi, Taluka Loha, Dist. Nanded. ...RESPONDENT (R-2 Ori.Complainant) ... Mr. A.M.Karad, Adv., h/f Mr. Suresh W.Munde, Adv. for the applicant. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP, for respondent State. Mr. R.P.Bhumkar, Adv., h/f Mr. S.D.Karkare, Advocate for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :18/9/2009 *** 2 P.C.: 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant (original accused), learned A.P.P. and the Counsel for respondent no.2/original complainant Shivdas. 2. Infraction of Section 341 of IPC and Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act led to conviction of the accused/applicant herein to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and simple imprisonment for three months, with fine of Rs.500/- respectively. 3. The matter was worked out between the parties before the learned Sessions Judge as could be seen by order dt.6.8.2008 ( Page 16-A). The learned Judge in terms of power under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. compounded the offense under Section 341 of IPC but did not exercise the same for the offense under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act as it is not compoundable. 4. The Counsel for the complainant Shivdas accepts that the matter is worked out. It was even worked out between the Village Dispute Redressal Committee and in order to maintain the cordial relations and atmosphere in the village at the intervention of the respectable persons, the matter was accepted to be settled and it was 3 so settled. The Counsel for the complainant has no grievance against the accused though there is a recorded conviction as stated above. 5. Present petition is in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The continuation of the prosecution against the accused/applicant will be certainly an abuse of process. They have worked out the matter. Though the offense is not compoundable but Section 482 Cr.P.C. comes into play to interfere in such eventualities. 6. The Counsel for the accused/applicant took me to the judgment in the matter of Dhanraj V. The State ( 1986 Cri.L.J. 284(1), particularly paragraph no.4 thereof, which is as under: "A doubt was raised that the offence under the protection of Civil Rights Act is not strictly a compoundable one. I have carefully considered thiscontention and heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. It is clear that the Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955 is a special Act and Section 16 of the same lays down that it overrides other laws. Now, the question is whether the conviction could be compounded in law. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and the circumstances set out supra, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for this Court to interfere and record the settlement arrived at between the parties. My reasons are as follows :- The preamble to the 4 Protection of Civil Rights Act reads that the Act was intended to punish the preaching of the practice of Untouchability, and for the enforcement of any disability arising therefrom. When the parties themselves have voluntarily and willingly come forward to settle their differences, I do not think there can be any legal impediment in permitting the same since, it is not contrary to the spirit of the Act. When the affected parties under the protection of Civil Rights Act themselves come before this Court and are prepared to compound the offence, there is no reason why this Court should not accept the same, since, in my opinion the Act itself will be better implemented if compounding of such offences is permitted. I have also taken into consideration the further fact that both the parties involved, namely, Krishnaveni and Indirani, are Staff Nurses employed in the Government Hospital, holding responsible posts, and both of them agree that further proceedings against each other may be dropped. The alleged acts constituting the offence took place in August, 1980 and it would appear that both parties have forgotten the incident totally as is clear from the endorsement made by the parties in person before this Court. In these circumstances it will be but just and expedient to uphold the compromise and record the same. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the conviction of Dhanraj the appellant in Cr. Ap. No. 112 of 1982 under S. 332, I.P.C. is set aside, and the fine, if already paid will be refunded to the appellant in C.A. 112 of 1982, Cr. Ap. 112 of 1982 is allowed. Similarly 5 Cr.M.P. 2185 of 1981 is also allowed and the prosecution in C.C. 261 of 1980 stands quashed." 7. Since the affected parties under Protection of Civil Rights Act have themselves approached this Court stating that they do not wish to further prosecute the matter, though there is recorded conviction, I do not see any reason to continue with the prosecution and, particularly when the application is moved for compounding by exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, order. ORDER Application allowed. The conviction recorded under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act is quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted of the said offense. Fine, if deposited, be refunded. Criminal Application allowed as above. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/4182-08crapl 6