Bombay High Court
Gajanan Baburao Jadhav And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 17 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:17863-DB
1 914.Cri.WP-1743-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1743 OF 2025
GAJANAN BABURAO JADHAV AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Senior Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar i/by
Mr. Fulfagar Anuj Ajay
Addl. PP for Respondents/State : Mr. A. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Jadhav Aummaheshwari S.
...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 17th APRIL 2026
PER COURT :
1. The Petitioners have filed the present petition, thereby
praying for quashing and setting aside the order of conviction dated
21.01.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 12 th
Court, Aurangabad in R.C.C. No. 1299/2011 and impugned order
dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad
in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2014, thereby upholding the conviction of
the Petitioners.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr.
Katneshwarkar, as well as the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2,
Mr. Jadhav, submit that the matter has been amicably settled
2 914.Cri.WP-1743-2025.doc
between the parties. The crime registered against the Petitioners
arose from a civil dispute that was raised before the Civil Court in
RCS No. 1187/2008, concerning the construction of a cattle shed in
Gut No. 54. This dispute led to a scuffle between the complainant
and the Petitioners, during which it is alleged that accused Nos. 1
and 2 assaulted the complainant with an iron rod, while accused Nos.
3 and 4 assaulted him with a stick. The incident resulted in a fracture
of the complainant's right leg. The injured witnesses and the
informant underwent treatment at Ghati Hospital. Consequently,
offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, and 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 37(1)
and 37(3) of the Bombay Police Act, were registered as Crime No.
53/2011 at Chikhalthana Police Station, Aurangabad.
3. The Petitioners were tried and convicted in the aforesaid
offences by the learned JMFC Aurangabad as the offences were
triable by Magistrate vide judgment dated 21.01.2014 in RCC No.
1299/2011.
4. The Petitioners have filed an appeal challenging the
aforesaid judgment of conviction. The learned Appellate Court, vide
its judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2014, was pleased to dismiss
the appeal, thereby maintaining the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the learned JMFC, Aurangabad in RCC No.
1299/2011 dated 21.01.2014. The Petitioners thereafter filed
3 914.Cri.WP-1743-2025.doc
Criminal Revision No. 355/2019, which is pending adjudication
before this Court. During the pendency of the Revision Proceedings,
the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2/Complainant resolved their
dispute, as the present crime was an outcome of civil proceedings in
RCS No. 1187/2008, which has also been compromised by filing a
compromise pursis. The compromise pursis contains a clause that the
criminal proceedings would also be withdrawn by the complainant,
who would give no objection to quash and set aside the proceedings.
Accordingly, the compromise was entered into and recorded by the
learned Civil Court, which accepted the said compromise and passed
a compromise decree in its order dated 11.01.2023. The matter was
thereafter placed before the Lok-Adalat for withdrawal.
5. The learned Counsel for Petitioners as well as the learned
Counsel for Respondent No.2 therefore submit that the parties have
entered into a compromise and have already settled the civil suit.
There is no public elements involved in the present crime. In view of
the settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned order of
conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, as well as the judgment
passed by the learned Appellate Court upholding the conviction, may
kindly be quashed and set aside, thereby acquitting the present
Petitioners.
6. The learned APP, on the other hand, strongly opposes the
petition on the ground that the Petitioners have misused the police
machinery and have now entered into a compromise. If this Court
4 914.Cri.WP-1743-2025.doc
comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the Petitioners can be
quashed and set aside on the ground of settlement between the
parties, heavy costs may be imposed upon the Petitioners for
misusing the police machinery and abusing the process of the Court.
7. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learnd trial
Court thereby convicting the Petitioners as well as the learned
Appellate Court thereby upholding the conviction of the Petitioners.
The Petitioners are convicted for the following offences :
Sr. No. Accused Offence U/sec. Sentence
1 Accused No.1 and 2 143 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 months
and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days
each.
Accused No.1 and 2 147 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months
and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to
suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days
each.
Accused No.1 and 2 148 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 Year and
fine of Rs.3,000/ in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for 1 month each.
Accused No.1 and 2 325 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and
fine of Rs.5,000/ in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for 3 months.
2 Accused No.3 and 4 143 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 months
and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days
each.
Accused No.3 and 4 147 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months
and fine of Rs.2,000/ in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for 15 days each.
Accused No.3 and 4 325 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and
fine of Rs.5,000/ in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for 3 months.
5 914.Cri.WP-1743-2025.doc
8. The Petitioners have been sentenced to a maximum
punishment of three years' imprisonment under Section 325 of the
Indian Penal Code. The other accused have already been released by
the Trial Court, granting them the benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act, with a direction to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation
to the informant out of the fine amount, in terms of Section 357(1)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. The Petitioners/accused as well as the Respondent No.2
(Complainant) have filed a joint affidavit in the present petition,
thereby confirming that the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties and that they have agreed to end both the civil
and criminal proceedings pending against each other, with the
permission of this Court. The compromise pursis filed before the
learned trial Court in RCS No. 1187/2008 has also been placed on
record along with the order dated 11.01.2023. The detailed order
below Exhibit-60 passed in RCS No. 1187/2008 shows that all the
parties, including the present Complainant/Shripad Janardhan
Jadhav, were present before the 12th Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Aurangabad, when the order recording the compromise was
passed.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 5228 was pleased to hold as
under :
"10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to
6 914.Cri.WP-1743-2025.doc
outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of
RamGopal and 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
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
extraordinary 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 Petitioners have filed the present petition praying for
exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (corresponding to Section 582 of the BNSS) for quashing
the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court as well
as the learned First Appellate Court. The Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in the case of Shakilabee
Abdul Kadar and Anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anr. in
Criminal Application No.2919/2024, was pleased to quash and set
aside the conviction of the Appellants on the ground of settlement,
even though the appeal challenging the conviction was pending, and
further held that such appeal shall be disposed of in view of the
quashing of the conviction in the application under Section 482.
Similarly, in the present petition, Criminal Revision No. 355/2019 is
pending, challenging the conviction of the Petitioners by the learned
Trial Court vide judgment dated 21.01.2014 passed in RCC No.
7 914.Cri.WP-1743-2025.doc
1299/2011, and the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.
45/2014.
12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shakilabee Abdul
Kadar and Anr. (supra), I am inclined to exercise the powers vested
in me under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment of
conviction. The apprehension expressed by the learned APP can be
addressed by imposing costs upon the Petitioners for having utilized
the police machinery and Court proceedings and thereafter settling
the disputes. Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of conviction dated 21.01.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 12th Court, Aurangabad in R.C.C. No. 1299/2011 and impugned order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2014, thereby upholding the conviction of the Petitioners, are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Criminal Revision No. 355/2019 also stands disposed of accordingly.
(iv) The aforesaid order shall be subject to the Petitioners depositing costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the Bhagwan Baba Balika Ashram and Rs. 50,000/- to the Devgiri Kalyan Ashram, within one week. The details of both Ashram are as follows:
8 914.Cri.WP-1743-2025.doc
1. Bhagwan Baba Balika Ashram Plot No. 4/5, Near Chate School, Pruthvinagar, Renukamata Kaman, Satara Parisar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
2. Devgiri Kalyan Ashram
(i) Bank Name : Jalgaon Janta Cooperative Bank, Deopur Dhule Branch
(ii) Account Number : 06023009470
(iii) IFSC Code: JJSB0000007 Bank
(v) The matter be placed for compliance on 28.04.2026.
MEHROZ K. PATHAN JUDGE NAJEEB..