SAU.MAYA SANJAY KHANDARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contentious issue as regards the scope of power exercisable under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') when a prayer is made for quashing criminal proceedings/conviction at the instance of a convict after his conviction for a non-compoundable offence on account of settlement between the convict and the victim/complainant falls for determination before this larger bench.

(2.) At the outset we may refer to the decisions that have led to making of the present reference.

(3.) In Criminal Application (APL) No.709/2020 (Maya Sanjay Khandare and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra) a report was lodged against the accused on the basis of which offence was registered under the provisions of Sections 354-A, 354-D and Section 506 of the Penal Code along with Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused came to be convicted by the Sessions Court on 29.11.2019. The convict preferred an appeal in this Court which was pending. On 17.08.2020 an affidavit was sworn by the convict stating therein that since the informant and the convict were residing in the same locality and an apology had been tendered to the informant through the mother of the convict, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code be invoked for quashing and setting aside the first information report as well as the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court. On behalf of the applicants reliance was placed on the decisions in Udhav Ghodse, Ajmatkhan and Shivaji Haribhau Jawanjal (supra). The Division Bench after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and ors. Vs. State of Gujrat and anr. (2017) 9 SCC 641 was of the view that exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code for quashing and setting aside an order of conviction has to be rarely exercised rather than being routinely exercised. Such power was to be invoked in exceptional circumstances and for offences which were not against the society. The same could not be invoked merely on the ground of settlement between the parties. The learned Judges comprising the Division Bench found themselves unable to agree with the proposition that in cases which have resulted in conviction of the accused after due trial on a settlement between the accused and the complainant/victim an application for settlement could be entertained and the conviction itself could be quashed as was done in the aforesaid cases. In view of such disagreement the Division Bench framed two questions and sought a reference to be made to the larger Bench for answering the same. The questions framed are as under :