1 (Appr 215 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2009 Lahanu Mahadu Navle & Ors. ...Applicant vs State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Mr.Dilip Bodake for Applicant Mr.A.S. Shitole -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 7TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for compounding the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by one Raghunath Mahadu Navale on 10.9.1995. 3. In the compliant, it was alleged that the accused assaulted one Eknath with sticks and iron rod and when 2 (Appr 215 of 2010) the complainant tried to intervene, he was also assaulted. Thereafter, the wife of the complainant tried to persuade the accused to stop the quarrel, however, she was also beaten by giving feast blows by the Accused. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for six months ad to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 4. Against this order, the accused preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court. The said appeal was dismissed and order passed by the Trial Court was confirmed. Against the said order, criminal revision application is filed by the original accused. Rule was granted. The Applicants were released on bail. In the said criminal revision application, criminal application No. 215 of 2010 is filed for compounding the said offence. The Applicants have annexed the affidavit of all the three injured persons viz. Sou. Parvatibai Raghunath Navle, Raghunath Mahadu Navle and Eknath Mahadu Navle. In the affidavit, all the three injured persons have stated that they have no objection if the case is compounded and the orders passed by both the Courts below are quashed and set aside. They have stated that after the incident, 3 (Appr 215 of 2010) there is no quarrel between the parties and the accused are close relatives of the injured persons. 5. The Complainant -Raghunath Navle is present in the court and the learned APP Shri A.S. Shitole has verified the identity of the Complainant on the basis of the documents, which are produced by him. He has reiterated that he has no objection if the order passed by both the Courts below is set aside. 6. The dispute between the parties appears to be a personal one and in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2003 SC 1386],(2) Jagdish Chanana vs. State of Haryana and Anr. [AIR 2008 SC 1968], (3) Madan Mohon Abbot vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2008 SC 1969], in my view, this is a fit case where order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, leave is granted to compound the case and, hence, the judgment and order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the J.M.F.C. Chandwad in Regular Criminal Case No. 157 of 1995 and which was confirmed by the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the Ad- hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Niphad in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2005 are quashed and set aside and the 4 (Appr 215 of 2010) Criminal Revision Application is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)