1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 195 OF 2004 Peter s/o Jayantrao Ohal, Aged 52 years, Occupation Government Service, Resident of Karmad, Taluka and District Aurangabad. Applicant V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Rukhmangad s/o Pandharinath Kulkarni, Aged 68 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Takali Ambad, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad (Died), L.Rs. 2-A. Sudhakar P. Kulkarni, Aged 62 years, Occupation Retired Teacher, Resident of as above. Respondents Smt Varsha S. Ghanekar, Adv. h/f . N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondent / State Mr. G.A. Borikar, Power of Attorney of respondent No.2-A. WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2004 1. Rukhmangad Pandharinath Kulkarni, Aged 83 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Takali (Ambad), Taluka Paithan (Died) L.Rs. 1/1. Sudhakar s/o Pancharinath Kulkarni, Aged 62 years, Occupation Retired Teacher, 1/2. Subhash s/o Madhukarrao Kulkarni, Aged 50 years, Occupation Service, 1/3. Ramesh s/o Madhukarrao Applicants 2 Kullkarni, Aged 40 years, Occupation Agriculture, All resident of Takali (Ambad), Taluka Paithan, District Arangabad. V E R S U S 1. Peter s/o Jayantrao Ohal, Aged 55 years, Occupation Police Head Constable, Bakkal No. 773 / 1855, Resident of Karmad, Taluka and District Aurangabad. 2. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. G.A. Borikar, Power of Attorney for applicants Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondent / State Smt. Varsha S. Ghanekar, Adv. h/f . N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the respondent No.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 20th September, 2010 ORAL ORDER : Smt. Varsha S. Ghanekar, learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri. G.A. Borikar, Power of Attorney, holding for respondent No.2 are present. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP is also present on behalf of State. On one hand, the original accused Shri Peter s/o Jayantrao Ohal, the then Police Head Constable is challenging the Judgment and order of conviction, and, on the other hand, the original complainant through his legal representatives is seeking enhancement in the quantum of sentence awarded to the original accused. Last time I heard the case fully and I also expressed my opinion to the parties and told them that they may try to settle the matter out of Court. The offences punishable under Sections 342 and 3 500 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable. The parties have compounded the case. Shri. Borikar, the attorney of the original complainant and his legal representatives admitted that the representatives of the deceased complainant have settled the matter out of Court and now do not want to prosecute the case further. In view of this, the Criminal Revision Application No. 195 of 2004 stands allowed and the applicant / accused stands acquitted of both the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. His bail stands discharged. The Criminal Revision Application No. 223 of 2004 stands dismissed as withdrawn. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/cra223.04with195.04