1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 75/2009 Manika s/o Kondiba Bhalerao, Age : 40 years, Occu. Service, R/o Anand Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ...Applicant. Versus 1 State of Maharashtra, through P.P. Office, High Court, at Aurangabad. 2 Police Sub Inspector, Police Station, Parbhani, (Rural) Tq & Dist. Parbhani. ...Respondents Shri N.R. Jamdhade, Advocate for appellant. Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1/State. Mr. S.N. Bojwar, Advocate for respondent/complainant. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J Date : 5th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 Heard. 2 This revision is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the applicant / accused had committed offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code 3 The trial Court on convicting the applicant for offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 2,000/- with default clause. The trial Court further directed that out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.1,000/- should be given to the complainant. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani confirmed the finding and the order of sentence. Thereafter, the applicant surrendered before Police and before his releasing on bail by this Court, he was in custody for about eight days. 5. During the pendency of this application, the parties arrived at compromise and the complainant agreed to forgive the applicant for the incident. They filed compromise purshis before the Court and requested the Court to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant to the period which he has already undergone in custody. 6. The question is whether in offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, which is not compoundable as per the provisions of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the request of the parties can be taken into account and whether a favourable order can be passed? 7. Similar situation arose before the Supreme Court in the case of Puttaswamy Versus State of Karnataka and another reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri)2486 (S.C.). The Supreme Court in para 5 observed as under. “The short point which ultimately arose during the hearing is whether the offence under Section 304-A could at all be compounded since the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 I.P.C. The aforesaid question has troubled this Court on different occasions, not only in connection with 3 compounding of offences punishable under the criminal justice system, but also in respect of civil matters, and in respect of matrimonial matters in particular, where the Court had to strike a balance between the rigidity of the law and doing substantial justice to the parties. In order to meet certain unusual situations, this Court has from time to time taken recourse to innovations and the powers vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution, in order to give a quietus to a litigation demanding a pragmatic solution. It has also been consistently held by this Court that when an offence did not come within the ambit of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code but the proceedings taken on the basis thereof deserved to be terminated, a sentence could always be reduced while maintaining the conviction and in most cases the sentence was reduced to the period of the sentence already undergone. In other cases, where circumstances so warranted, even the sentence was altered which at times brought the proceedings within the scope of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code and the offence was allowed to be compounded.” 8. On perusal of the compromise purshis, it is seen that both the applicant and complainant are resident of village Raipur Tq. And District Parbhani and in order to maintain amiable relationship, they have filed compromise purshis. Despite this compromise, if the Court insisted on sentence the applicant to suffer further substantive sentence then the purpose of filing of this compromise purshis would be frustrated and probably the relationship between the parties would not restore to normalcy. So, there is ample scope for me to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the applicant to the period which he has already undergone in custody. ORDER a) The application is partly allowed. b) Rule made partly absolute. c) The substantive sentence awarded to the 4 applicant is reduced to the sentence already undergone. d) The judgment and order of conviction of the applicant under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code is maintained. e) The sentence of fine shall remain undisturbed. f) The order in respect of compensation is also not disturbed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/ok