( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 938 OF 2009 1. Rama Dnyandeo Bade .. Petitioners Age. 47 years, Occ. Agriculture 2. Ashok Dnyandeo Bade Age. 37 years, Occ. Agriculture 3. Natha Rama Bade Age. 27 years, Occ. Agriculture 4. Laxman Bhagwan Dhakane Age. 36 years, Occ. Agriculture 5. Shivaji Ashruba Dhakane Age. 29 years, Occ. Agriculture 6. Subhash Ashruba Dhakane Age. 27 years, Occ. Agriculture 7. Baban Dnyana Bade, Age. 29 years, Occ. Agriculture 8. Ashok Rangnath Dhakane Age. 38 years, Occ. Agriculture 9. Baban Savlaram Dhakane Age. 44 years, Occ. Agriculture 10. Raosaheb Uttamrao Dhakane Age. 44 years, Occ. Agriculture All R/o. Dhakanwadi, Post – Wadgaon, Tal. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. Versus ( 2 ) 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents 2. Sau. Lilabai Kanhu More Age. 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. At – Dhakanwadi, Post – Wadgaon, Tal. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. Shri Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State. Shri P.R. Nangare, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. RESERVED ON : 21.11.2009 PRONOUNCED ON : 25.11.2009 J U D G M E N T :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned advocates for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the accused persons for quashing and setting aside charge-sheet in R.C.C. No. 20 of 2008, which is subsequently registered as Sessions Case No. 78 of 2008, filed against them by Pathardi Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar, for committing offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled ( 3 ) Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”) and under Sections 143, 337, 427, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”). 3. The case of the petitioners is that after alleged crime was registered against them on 13.08.2007, they were arrested on 31.08.2007 and were released on bail on same day. Charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pathardi, on 31.12.2007. The learned Magistrate was pleased to commit the case for trial to the Sessions Court on 08.04.2008. The committal order is annexed with the petition. Now the matter is pending in the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar. According to the petitioners, almost two years period is over after the alleged incident and owing to intervention and mediation of village elders and President of Tantamukti Samittee of said area, the accused, respondent No. 2 and her family members have discussed the matter and sorted out their misunderstanding and a resolution was passed by Tantamukti Samittee on 15.08.2009, the copy of which is annexed with Exh. “C”. Now cordial relations have been restored between the petitioner/accused and respondent No.2 and no ill-feeling exists between them. Chances of ( 4 ) conviction are bleak and it is not desirable that the prosecution should continue and in the circumstances the charge-sheet and Sessions Case No. 78 of 2008 be quashed and set aside. 4. Respondent No.2 – original complainant Lilabai Kanhu More has stated that on the eve of Independence Day, she along with members of her family, village elders, president of Tantamukti Samittee sat together, discussed their dispute; and after discussion, mediation and intervention of villagers, they have sorted their misunderstanding and decided to solve dispute at their level. Accordingly, resolution was passed by Tantamukti Sammittee at Exh. “C”. Now cordial relations developed between respondent No.2 and all petitioners. They are living in same village Dhakanwadi and they do not want to develop enmity in future and therefore the complainant does not desire to prosecute the complaint. 5. Respondent No.1/State has strongly opposed the petition saying that major offences are not compoundable and therefore they cannot be compounded by back door. The ( 5 ) learned A.P.P. also highlighted social aspects involved in the allegations made in the complaint and requested that the petition be dismissed. 6. Before I consider cases cited, I may consider contents of the F.I.R., the copy of which is produced on record. The Complainant/respondent No.2 Lilabai has stated in her F.I.R. that she is resident of Dhakanwadi. Her family, consists of her husband Khanu More, sons Ajinath, Balasaheb, Vithal and daughters Usha and Kusum. They have been residing at Dhakanwadi for 35 years and cultivating Gayran land. The land of Rama Dnyandeo Bade was far away from their land. However, in the land of Rama Bade the bullocks of complainant Lilabai trespassed & grazed and therefore on 12.07.2007 at 5.00 p.m. accused Nos. 1 to 6 came and abused Ajinath Khanu More, aged 23 years and asked whether he had become arrogant, and said that he had committed theft of Bajra crop. At that time petitioner No.1 pelted stone on Ajinath, who sustained bleeding injury on his head. When Ajinath went into house, other accused persons entered the house, pulled him out and beat with kicks and fists blows. At that time respondent No.2 and her husband ( 6 ) Khanu rescued Ajinath. But, since Ajinath had sustained head injury, he was taken to Civil Hospital, where he was treated and on the next day complaint was lodged at Pathardi Police Station. Thereafter villagers learnt about the complaint, they brought pressure on the complainant/respondent No.2 and thereafter villagers and complainant went to police station and compromised the matter at Pathardi Police Station. 7. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that on 28.07.2007 at 10.00 a.m. when Vithal and Kusum – children of the complainant, were going to school, accused No.4 Laxman said that persons of “Bhil” community should not be allowed to come in the village and their children should not take education in the school. He sent back Vithal and Kusum and thus he did not allow them to attend school. Thereafter, respondent No.2 Lilabai went to purchase at grocery shop of accused Nos. 8 and 9, but they refused to sell any goods and thus excommunicated respondent No. 2 and her family. On the next day respondent No.2 Lilabai, her son Ajinath and other members of their family went to the land for agriculture purpose. When they were returning at 5 p.m., they saw all ( 7 ) the accused removing GIC sheets from the roof of the house of respondent No.2. So, due to fear respondent No.2 and members of his family did not say anything and they went to the Police Station and lodged complaint. It may be noted that respondent No.2 has put her thumb impression in the affidavit-in-reply and she nowhere stated that the allegations made by her in the F.I.R. are false. 8. Various authorities are cited before me. First case cited is the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1162 (S.C.). In that case the Supreme Court laid down that while using inherent powers for quashing proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint, Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not be a bar. Whether to exercise or not such power would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the case before the Supreme Court, there was matrimonial dispute. Offence alleged was under Sections 498- A and 406 of the I.P.C. by wife against husband. According to the affidavits filed in the High Court, the disputes of wife with husband and others have been finally settled and wife agreed for mutual divorce. The High Court took view that both offences 498-A and 406 are not compoundable and ( 8 ) therefore inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised. However, the Supreme Court referred to various authorities which laid down when such powers could be used. The learned advocate for the petitioners pointedly drew my attention to para 10 in which State of Karnataka V/s. Muniswamy and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 is cited. It is held that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice. So, it was also observed from the facts that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence and when there was no possibility of conviction, to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting parties to compound non- compoundable offences would be not be correct. 9. It is argued before me that it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to permit quashing of prosecution, though case is committed to the Sessions Court as parties have settled their dispute and if prosecution continues, prosecution witness would turn hostile and it ( 9 ) would be futile exercise. Therefore, in the light of observations made in various cases referred to in B.S. Joshi (Supra), it is expedient and in the interest of justice to quash and charge-sheet and sessions case. 10. Second case cited is Mansur A. Khan V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2004 ALL ME (Cri) 1911. This is a decision by Single Bench of this Court. The accused were facing prosecution for offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. In para 11 it is observed that the complainant has stated on oath that he misunderstood the remarks and the utterances of the petitioner regarding his work while he was working with the petitioner and that he lodged a complaint without understanding the exact interpretation of the said utterances. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, he has gone a step further and stated that he was not in a proper state of mind while lodging the F.I.R. and that he subsequently realised that the complaint lodged by him was factually incorrect. He has also stated that the complainant never uttered the words referred to in the complaint attracting the provisions of the Atrocities Act. In said circumstances the Court used the power. It is not ( 10 ) case of present respondent No.2 that she has filed false complaint or that events as mentioned in the complaint did not take place. In-fact, the allegations are of very serious nature. Even children were not allowed to attend school. There was removal of G.I.C. Sheets from the roof of the house. There was beating by entering into house and pulling out a person. So, the allegations in the present case are of much serious nature. 11. Next case cited is State of Karnataka V/s. L. Muniswamy and Others, AIR 1977 S.C.1489. In the said case the trial was for offence of attempted murder against several accused persons. The Sessions Court discharged some accused and adjourned case for framing specific charges against rest of the accused. In para 7 it is observed that under Sections 227 and 482 of Cr.P.C. the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. This case is referred in B.S. Joshi (Supra). ( 11 ) 12. Next case cited is Abasaheb Yadav Honmane V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 952. The learned advocate for the petitioners referred to para 8 of the said case. It is as under :- “8. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. may be exercised in following three circumstances. (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii)to otherwise secure the ends of justice.” . It is argued before me that to prevent abuse of process of Court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to strike the charge-sheet and the sessions case. 13. It may be noted that it is not case of the petitioners or respondent No.2 that the contents of F.I.R. or the investigation papers did not disclose the offences alleged. What is said is that now the matter is compromised ( 12 ) outside the Court and therefore it should not be allowed to proceed. 14. The learned A.P.P. Shri B.V. Wagh vehemently opposed the petition saying that it is indirect way of compounding offences which are not compoundable. Now the case has reached the stage of framing of charges. The offences are of serious nature. If there is settlement outside the Court and if the accused are really relented of their action, the Court can take lenient view by noting the reasons. But quashing of charge-sheet and Sessions case at this stage would send a wrong signal, in as much as in every major case, by muscle power or money power or otherwise, the accused would bring about settlement outside the Court and would request the Court to quash proceedings. 15. The learned A.P.P. relied upon case of Km. Madhurima Bhargava and ors. V/s. State of U.P. and Anr., 1999 Cri.L.J.685. In that case the Allahabad High Court laid down the limitations of inherent powers of the High Court. It is held that the Court cannot direct compounding of offences in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, the ( 13 ) Court can quash proceedings in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. The last case cited before me is Full Bench ruling of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh Bhawnani and etc. V/s. State and another, 2002 CRI.L.J.744. It is stated therein that offences which are not compoundable in view of specific bar of Section 320 (9) cannot be dealt with under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 17. In my considered opinion, this is not a case where discretion in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can be used in favour of the petitioners. This is not a case or stage to quash either charge-sheet or Sessions Case. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crwp938.09