( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 384 OF 2010 Sudam s/o Sambhaji Dhavale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 391 OF 2010 Balaji s/o Mahajan Kothewad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENT .... Mr. B.A. Dhengle, advocate holding for Mr. T.J. Poul, advocate for the applicant in both the applications. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent/State in both the applications. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The application is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the judgement rendered by the trial Court for offence punishable under sections 468 and 471 of the I.P. Code. 3. Contention of the applicants is that the original ( 2 ) complainant settled the dispute and the matter is amicably settled between the parties and yet, permission to compound the offence is wrongly rejected by the trial Court. 4. The applicants are convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 420, 468 and 471 of the I.P. Code in R.C.C. No. 490/1999. They have also preferred an appeal against the judgement of conviction and sentence. 5. Since the conviction ordered is already subjudice before the Sessions Court, it would not be appropriate to make any comment on the issue pertaining to alleged compounding of the offence. The applicants are at liberty to agitate their contention before the Court of Sessions, including the argument that if the offence is not compoundable, then the mitigating circumstances may be considered. In any case, the proceedings cannot be quashed in the exercise of extraordinary powers when the remedy by way of appeal is already availed. Hence, both the applications are disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln384-391-10 ( 3 )