*1* 965rev139o21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2021 BASAVRAJ HAVANNA SAMAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Shri Kore Ganesh J., Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. B.B. Gunjal, APP for the Respondent/ State. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 25 August 2026 P. C. :- 1. The applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, in Criminal Appeal No.23/2018 thereby, dismissing the said appeal filed by the applicant and confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.03.2018 passed by the learned JMFC, Omerga, in RCC No.55/2015 convicting the applicant/ accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2026:BHC-AUG:38686 *2* 965rev139o21 2. When this matter was called out yesterday, the applicant/ accused as well as the informant were present in person. Learned advocate for the applicant has tendered the following documents:- (a) Notarized affidavit dated 24.08.2026 sworn in by the informant stating therein that Shanubai Vasant Rathod and Shantabai Vasant Rathod are the names of same person i.e. herself. Her name as per Aadhar Card is Shanubai Vasant Rathod, however, at the time of registration of crime, her name was recorded as Shantabai Vasant Rathod. (b) Joint application on behalf of the applicant/ accused and the informant for taking the compromise/ settlement terms on record, dated 24.08.2026. (c) Affidavit of the informant/ complainant dated 24.08.2026. 3. It is stated that during pendency of this matter, the parties have compromised the matter and the informant has not no grievance against the applicant/ accused. The dispute between the applicant and the informant has been finally settled, there is *3* 965rev139o21 no personal grievance against each other and as such, the informant is not interested in prosecuting the applicant further. The informant has also given no objection for taking this compromise on record and granting relief to the applicant in the instant revision. 4. It is stated that both the applicant and informant are staying in the same village and their differences have now been resolved and both of them are desirous to maintain peace and harmony. Therefore, no purpose would be served if the applicant is convicted. 5. The above three documents are taken on record and marked as ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘Z’, respectively for the purpose of identification. 6. Since the parties have settled the dispute, this Court is of the view that the matter can be disposed of in accordance with the terms of compromise. However, the learned APP opposed the settlement. According to learned APP, crime is serious and took place against woman residing in rural area. Crime being against the society, may not be permitted to be compromised as same is not compoundable. *4* 965rev139o21 7. Crime took place in the year 2015. On the basis of the report lodged by the informant, the crime was registered and the applicant was tried and came to be convicted. His appeal against conviction is also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order. Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and they are residing in same village peacefully, it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter considering the settlement between the parties. 8. It is true that the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is not ordinarily compoundable. However, the present exercise is not one of permitting composition of a non-compoundable offence in disregard of the statutory provision. The High Court, in an appropriate case, can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice, even where the offence is non-compoundable. In the present case, the incident is of the year 2015; the parties are residents of the same village and have voluntarily settled their dispute. The informant is personally present before the Court and has filed an affidavit unequivocally stating that the dispute has been amicably resolved and that she has no objection to the applicant being *5* 965rev139o21 granted relief. Upon interaction with the informant, this Court is satisfied that the settlement is voluntary and without coercion or undue influence. Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, the considerable passage of time, the subsequent settlement between the parties and the fact that the continuance of the conviction would not serve any useful purpose in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that interference with the impugned orders would secure the ends of justice. 9. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Application is allowed in view of the compromise terms between the parties. The impugned judgments and orders are quashed and set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the said charge. The applicant is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled and the surety, if any, stands discharged. The find amount, if deposited, be refunded to the applicant. The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )