{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2861 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.217 OF 2008 Bharat Baban Gujar & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the applicants Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State Mr. S.S.Wagh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. This application is moved by the applicants in criminal revision No.217/2008. By the said revision, the applicants have prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the applicants by the learned Sessions Judge Beed, be quashed and set aside. 2. By the present application, the applicants have contended that the offence is compounded between the applicants {2} and original complainant, respondent No.2 and hence it is requested that the order impugned in the revision application be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent No. 1 and Mr.Wagh, accepts for respondent No.2, original complainant. 4. Today, the parties have placed on record a deed of compromise / compounding arrived at between the applicants and original complainant. The deed of compromise is duly signed by all the applicants as well as by the original complainant and their respective counsel. All the applicants and respondent No.2, original complainant are present in the Court. The parties admit that by their free will and consent they have filed the deed of compromise and no force or coercive measure is practiced upon them to file the deed of compromise. The affidavit is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. 5. Under the provisions of section 320 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code, can be compounded even without leave of the Court. However, as the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.28/2007 is challenged by the applicants in Criminal Revision No.217/2008, the parties are before this Court to allow them to compound the offence. Considering the fact that the parties have settled their {3} dispute and have arrived at a compromise to compound the offence, this application is allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offence. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2861-10 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.217 OF 2008 Bharat Baban Gujar & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the applicants Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State Mr. S.S.Wagh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this revision, the applicants have prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the applicants by the learned Sessions Judge Beed in criminal appeal No.28/2007, be quashed and set aside. 2. Record shows that the applicants were tried by learned JMFC, Patoda in RCC No.205/2005 and the first applicant was held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 248 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, he was directed to furnish a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- for good behaviour, as per provision of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of 3 months. It appears that the said order was challenged by the State in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2007 before the learned Sessions Judge Beed. The learned {5} Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10.09.200 pleased to allow the appeal filed by the State and the applicants were held guilty and convicted for an offence punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer SI till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. It further appears that the applicants have deposited the amount of fine in the lower court on 10th September 2008 itself. The applicants have assailed the impugned order of conviction by preferring the present criminal revision application. It also appears that vide order dated 22.10.2008, this Court has admitted the revision. 6. As the parties have arrived at a compromise and the parties are allowed to compound the offence by an order passed in criminal application No.2861/2010, the present criminal revision application deserves to be allowed. 7. In the result, the criminal revision application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The fine amount deposited by the applicants in the lower court, be refunded to them. Accordingly, the revision application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2861-10