Bombay High Court
Prabhu Shankarappa Bhatsangve vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:4779
1 72.Cri.REVN.204-2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 204 OF 2013
PRABHU SHANKARAPPA BHATSANGVE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1214 OF 2025
IN REVN/204/2013
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Savant Vilas P.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. V. B. Jogdand
APP for Respondents/State : Mr. K. K. Naik
...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Counsels for the Applicants and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The Applicant has approached this Court seeking
quashment of the proceedings and the conviction, as the matter has
been amicably settled between the parties. The Revision Applicant
was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parali, for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and
in default, simple imprisonment for 30 days. The Applicant was
2 72.Cri.REVN.204-2013.doc
further convicted under Section 32-B of the Bombay Money Lending
Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.
500/-, and in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days. The Revision
Applicant thereafter filed Appeal No. 8/2007 before the learned
Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai,
vide order dated 04.09.2013, dismissed the appeal and upheld the
conviction against the Applicant/Prabhu Shankarappa Bhatsangve,
holding that the Applicant was indulging in money-lending activity
without a licence and had committed cheating.
. The Applicant has thus approached this Court by filing the
present Criminal Revision. This Court, vide order dated 03.09.2025,
suspended the sentence by taking into consideration the settlement
arrived at between the Applicant and the complainant. Earlier, vide
order dated 09.04.2025, this Court had directed the Registry to verify
the settlement terms arrived at between the parties. The Registrar
thereafter submitted a report confirming the correctness of the
settlement terms, which were verified along with the identification of
the parties who had entered into the settlement with the assistance of
the learned Counsels appearing. The report dated 09.04.2025 is on
record. The terms of settlement have also been filed on record along
with the affidavit of the Respondent/complainant dated 01.04.2025.
3. The learned Counsel Mr. Savant for the Applicant submits
that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022)
13 SCC 635 as well as the judgment in Ramgopal and another Vs.
3 72.Cri.REVN.204-2013.doc
State of Madhya Pradesh reported (2022) 14 SCC 531, this Court
may be pleased to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of the judgment of the conviction on account of settlement
arrived at between the parties.
4. The learned APP opposes the present application on the
ground that the Applicant and the complainant have misused the
police machinery. The Applicant had suffered a conviction at the
hands of the learned JMFC, which was upheld by the learned
Sessions Judge. If the Applicant and the complainant are allowed to
enter into a settlement, heavy costs may be imposed upon them in
case this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings and conviction on
the ground of settlement.
5. I have gone through the judgment dated 18.01.2007 passed
by the learned JMFC, Parali, in RCC No. 338/2004. I have also
examined the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 8/2007 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ambejogai, dated 04.09.2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the
three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Spreme Court has held as under :
10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad
rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in
the case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of
us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an
identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been
clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320
Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription against the
4 72.Cri.REVN.204-2013.doc
invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High
Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the
touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary powers under
Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete
justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case
may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the
offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly
entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in
exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.
11. The Court in Romgopal (Supra) further postulated that
criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or offences
which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside
at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate
level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that
unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal
liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force,
threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means,
cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post-
conviction, the Courts should, inter-alia, carefully examine the
fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well
as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in
question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain
guidelines and held:
19... Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide
amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
(i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the
society;
(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any;
(iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and
the victim; &
(iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations."
[Emphasis Applied]
6. After going through the parameters laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments and the affidavit
5 72.Cri.REVN.204-2013.doc
filed by Respondent No.2/complainant, which was verified by the
Registrar of the High Court on 09.04.2025, I am convinced that the
parties have settled the matter amicably of their own free will. For
the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed in
terms of prayer clause 'C' and 'D'. Hence the following order :
ORDER
(i) In view of compromise and amicable settlement between Applicant/sole accused and Respondent No.2, Criminal Revision Application No.204/2013 is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order of conviction dated 18.01.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parali (V), in RCC No.338/2004 and judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai in Criminal Appeal No.08/2007 dated 04.09.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside and the Applicant is acquitted for charges levelled against him.
(iii) The aforesaid order is subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to Bhagwanbaba Balika Ashram, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The Applicant/Prabhu shall deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of one week. The matter be placed for compliance on 16.02.2026.
7. The Criminal Revision Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly in aforesaid terms.
MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE NAJEEB..