1 Cri.A.1259.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1259 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.438 OF 2003 1. Gita Baswant Datal, Age 36 Years, Occup.:Agril., R/o Latur, Tq. And District Latur. 2. Baswant S/o Digambar Datal, Aged : 45 years, Occup.: Medical Practitioner, R/o Latur, Taluka and District Latur. ...APPLLCANTS. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through: Police Station Bhada. Tq. and District Latur. ...RESPONDENT. WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.438 OF 2003 Baswant S/o Digambar Datal ...APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through: Police Station Bhada. Tq. and District Latur. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.V.D.Gunale,Advocate for Applicants (Appellant) Shri.S.G.Nandedkar, A.G.P.for Respondent-State ... 2 Cri.A.1259.11 CORAM: SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Leave to correct, granted. 2. Appellant - Original accused Baswant S/o Digamber Datal (in Criminal Appeal No.438 of 2003) was charged for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and he faced the trial for the said charges, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2003. 3. By the Judgment and order, dated 21st May, 2003, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2003, the appellant Baswant S/o Digambar Datal was acquitted for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal code, but was found guilty and was convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five 3 Cri.A.1259.11 Hundred), in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant -Baswant S/o Digamber Datal was also found guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand), in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months and both the said substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is reported that the appellant has deposited fine amount before trial Court on the same day. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21st May, 2003, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2003, applicant No.2 Baswant (appellant) has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2003, before this Court, which was admitted on 19.06.2003 and same is pending. 5. During the pendency of said Appeal, by way of present application, Geeta Baswant Dalal, first 4 Cri.A.1259.11 informant and the appellant herein, namely, Baswant S/o Digamber Datal have put in compromise, which has been arrived at between them, amicably outside the Court stating that, they are husband and wife, their marriage was solemnized long back on 29.09.2001, and today they are cohabiting with each other peacefully at Latur, although earlier there were some matrimonial disputes between them. It is also stated in the said application that applicants have realized that there was no meaning to continue with matrimonial dispute as same is against their interest and against the interest of their children. In that view of the matter, they have resolved the dispute and they are residing with each other since last eight years. They also submitted that they are living happy and peaceful life and they have realized that the earlier dispute between them was uncalled for and unwarranted. It is further stated in the said application that Geeta Baswant Datal had made criminal complaint against the appellant Baswant Digamber Datal on account of misunderstanding in 5 Cri.A.1259.11 the then prevailing facts and circumstances, in as much as, considering the relationship of applicants, the said complaint should not have been made, but unfortunately the said complaint was made and Appellant(applicant No.2) was convicted in the aforesaid offences. 6. The applicants further submit that since they are living peaceful and happy life, it is necessary for them to compromise their matrimonial dispute. Accordingly, applicants urged that the said compromise arrived at between them, be taken on record and appropriate orders be passed. 7. On perusal of the said application, it appears that the said application-cum-compromise has been signed by applicant Nos.1 and 2, as well as Mr.V.D.Gunale, learned counsel for applicants. Moreover, said application is verified by applicant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Today the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are present in the Court in person. They admitted the contents of the said 6 Cri.A.1259.11 application and their respective signatures thereon as well as their signatures below the verification thereto. 8. Mr.Gunale, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty Vs. Stateof Orissa reported in 1999 AIR(SC)-0-2181 and in the case Ram Pujan Vs State of Uttar Paradesh reported in 1973 SCC-2-456 . 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Considering the fact that parties have settled the dispute amicably out side the Court and also considering the fact that alleged incident occurred, on 18.09.2002, and almost nine years have been lapsed since then, and further considering the fact that the first informant i.e. applicant NO.1 herein, namely, Geeta is the wife of applicant NO.2 Baswant, and as stated in the 7 Cri.A.1259.11 present application they are residing peacefully for substantial period of last eight years, there is no impediment in compounding the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, invoking the provisions of section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, since applicant No.2 has already deposited fine amount, the conviction and sentence imposed upon applicant No.2 Baswant Digambar Datal, for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, deserves to be compounded, and consequently, stands quashed and set aside. 11. As regards the conviction and sentence imposed upon applicant No.2-Baswant for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, it is manifestly clear from the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the conviction and sentence is not compoundable. However, relying upon the observations made in the above referred judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and also considering 8 Cri.A.1259.11 the fact, as observed in the impugned judgment that applicant No.2 Baswant (i.e. appellant in Appeal) was in jail, from 19.09.2002 to 03.01.2003 (i. e. 03 months and 15 days), and considering the fact that parties i.e. the first informant, namely, Geeta Baswant Datal (applicant No.1) and her husband applicant No.2(Appellant) have settled the dispute outside the Court amicably and residing together happily for last eight years and almost nine years have been lapsed from the date of incident, which allegedly occurred on 18.09.2002, no purpose would be served in continuing the present Appeal since matrimonial dispute between applicants herein has been resolved amicably, as stated in the present application. Further since applicant No. 1, the first informant has categorically stated in the present application that she had made complaint against applicant No.2 Baswant on account of misunderstanding in the then prevailing facts and circumstances, and since they are living happy and peaceful life since eight years as stated in the 9 Cri.A.1259.11 present application, and applicant No.2 Baswant Datal (Appellant) was already in jail for the period of three months and fifteen days, as aforesaid, the conviction inflicted upon applicant No.2 Baswant Datal(Appellant) for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is required to be confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment deserve to be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone, in jail, in the interest of justice. 12. In the result, present application is allowed partly, and conviction and sentence imposed upon applicant No.2-Baswant Digambar Datal (Appellant) for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, stands compounded under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of compromise arrived between them as mentioned herein above and conviction and sentence imposed upon applicant No. 2-Baswant Digambar Datal (Appellant) for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian 10 Cri.A.1259.11 Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside. 13. However, the conviction imposed upon applicant No.2 Baswant Digambar Datal(Appellant) for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, by impugned judgment and order dated 21st May, 2003, rendered by Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2003, stands confirmed, but sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years imposed upon him is reduced to the period of three months and fifteen days, which has already been undergone by him, in the jail. 14. In view of the aforesaid position nothing survives in Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2003, and therefore, same stands disposed of. Sd/- [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.] MTK 11 Cri.A.1259.11