[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.341 OF 2008 Shri.Jagannath Mahipati Chavan ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.P.B.Kulkarni advocate for Applicant Mr.V.V.Purwant Adv. for original complainant Ms.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused, the learned advocate for the respondent-original complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The complainant who is the injured witness, is present in Court. 2. By judgment and order dated 9.2.2001, the learned Vth Asstt. Sessions Judge Satara convicted the applicant in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1997. By the said judgment and order, the applicant came to be convicted mainly under Section 307 of IPC. The learned advocate for the complainant states that the applicant and complainant who is injured [-2-] witness, are close relatives and they have amicably settled the dispute between themselves. The affidavit of the complainant-injured witness has been tendered which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Mahesh Mahesh Chand and another Vs. State of Rajasthan; Chand and another Vs. State of Rajasthan; Chand and another Vs. State of Rajasthan; reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111. AIR 1988 SC 2111. AIR 1988 SC 2111. In the said case, offence was under Section 307 of IPC. In view of the compromise between the parties, the Supreme Court directed the trial Judge to accord sanction to compound the offence. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Y.Suresh Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Y.Suresh Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Y.Suresh Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; reported in JT 1987 (2) 361 SC JT 1987 (2) 361 SC JT 1987 (2) 361 SC, wherein the Supreme Court granted leave to compound the offence under section 326 of IPC on account of compromise between the parties. 3. In view of the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the complainant does not wish to prosecute the accused, in my opinion, in order to maintain peace and harmony between the parties and in the interest of justice, the said CR deserves to be quashed. [-3-] Accordingly, CR No.6 of 1997 registered at CID Pune, and proceedings relating thereto, are quashed. The applicant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 4. Application is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]