1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 71 /2011 (Rajesh Damodhar Pandey vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ) & CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 185/2011 (Smt. Saraswati D/o Dushashan Das vs. State of Maharashtra and another ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 20 th June, 2011. Heard Mr.A.A. Naik, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr D.B. Yengal, learned APP for respondent -State and Shri H.D. Harode, for respondent no.2. 2. It appears that there was matrimonial dispute between the applicant-herein and respondent no.2 which was taken to Family Court, Nagpur. The applicant had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. It is alleged that the respondent no.2 had attempted to marry with one Rahul Sawai, therefore, the applicant filed petition for declaration and permanent injunction against her. The trial Court had dismissed both the petitions, namely, No. A-9/2007 as well as Petition No. B -2/2007. In the result it was found that there was no legal marriage between the applicant and respondent no.2 and the applicant was not entitled to the decree for restitution 2 of conjugal rights. The decree by the Family Court was challenged in First Appeal No. 853/2009 in the High Court. While the First Appeal was pending the parties decided to end their dispute by compromise which was filed under the signature of the parties and their Advocates before the High Court in First Appeal No.853/2009. The terms and conditions were accepted and compromise decree in terms of the compromise pursis was passed. In the result, the First Appeal No.853/2009 was disposed of since the parties had compromised all the proceedings between them, including the criminal proceedings namely, Criminal Complaint Case No.1113/2007 pending before the JMFC (Corporation Court No.2) Nagpur and Regular Criminal Case No.9379/2007 registered at Sadar Police Station for offence punishable under sections 469, 199, 200, 209, 500 & 501 IPC. The parties had decided to file appropriate proceedings in the High Court for to quash the Regular Criminal Case No. 9379/2007 pending before the learned JMFC (6th Court Nagpur). 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant made a reference to Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677 ; Manoj Sharma vs. State and others ( 2008 ) 16 SCC 1 and B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003 ) 4 SCC 675, in order to submit that the Apex Court had indirectly permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. Although 3 subsequently in the ruling of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2010 (12) SCALE 461 the matter has been referred to larger Bench. Learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted that this Court had earlier in such situation, in the ruling in Madhao Bapat vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009 (4) Bom.C.R. 32 in paragraph 35 held that decision should not be kept under suspended animation in view of the pendency of reference of decision before the larger Bench. Similarly, decision of the Apex Court referred to the larger Bench does not make the law already laid down by the Apex Court not binding on the High Court till the authoritative pronouncement is delivered by the the larger Bench of the Apex Court. Therefore, it is submitted that since the parties have entered into the compromise with each other and decided to end their dispute including criminal proceedings as a result of compromise deed which was accepted by this Court in First Appeal No. 853/1009, the prayer is made for to quash and set aside the charge-sheet No.115/2007 filed before the learned JMFC Court no.6 Nagpur as also criminal complaint No.113/2007 filed on 4.4.2007 in the Court of learned JMFC, Nagpur. Heard Mr. D.B.Yengal, learned APP who raised an objection regarding offence punishable under sections 199 and 200 of IPC on the ground that procedure for taking cognizance of such offences is different as 4 contemplated under section 195 read with section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, it appears that the accusation was made at the instance of Smt. Saraswati Dushashan Das and she is a party to the compromise deed. Even if we look at the procedure as contemplated under section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. the cognizance of such offence punishable under sections 199 and 200 of IPC is barred unless the complaint is made by the Court or the authorized officer in respect of the documents filed in the Court. There is no such case here. That being so the compounding as prayed for, is allowed. Both the applications are allowed as prayed for as parties have ended their grievance against each other in view of the compromise deed already accepted by this Court in connected proceedings in First Appeal No. 853/2009. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Sahare