1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1960 of 2010 Kamal Narayan s/o Chandrakant Tiwari V/s. The State of Maharashtra through PSO Gitti Khadan, Nagpur ......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ......................................................................................................................................... Mr. H. G. Katekar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. A. S. Sonare, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2011. 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant prayed for quashing of the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 506(B), 294, 337 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, reported at Police Station, Gitti Khadan, Distt.Nagpur. 2. It appears that crime was reported as FIR No.192/2006 on 16/05/2006, at Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur at the instance of first informant Rinku @ Rajendra Mishra against the present applicant and others alleging that the applicant along with others abused the complainant in filthy language so also threatened him to kill and assault. In the result, offence was registered under 2 Section 294, 506(B), 337 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to learned Advocate for the applicant, the complainant has offered to compound the case and, therefore, the applicant also prayed for compounding of the offence. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that in view of the ruling in the case of Sayyed Tareque Ali v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2011(5) AIR Bom R 685, even offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which is not compoundable offence but the High Court may use/exercise inherent powers to quash the proceedings even involving non-compoundable offence. 4. Learned APP submitted that complainant did not apply before this Court to compound the offence at any time. The charge-sheet is filed and now it is pending as criminal case No. 929 of 2007. Learned APP also submits that since the charge-sheet is submitted, there is alternative remedy available for the applicant to file an application for discharge and the learned trial Court may discharge the applicant if complainant is not interested to proceed with the case against him. However, on merits, it is contended that there is ample material against the present applicant who was referred as Sonu @ Keshto and statements of eye witness to the incident is also recorded, who does involve the present applicant in the act of violence against first 3 informant, which is also corroborated by first informant Rinku Mishra. Since charge-sheet is already filed and there is no such prayer for to quash the charge-sheet, application cannot be kept pending. It is open for the applicant to prefer an alternative remedy as suggested by learned APP to apply for discharge in case the complainant is not interested to proceed against him or for want of material against him. Under these circumstances, the application is dismissed. JUDGE Punde