- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 59 OF 2022 MUSTAFA GAFURSAAB TAPPEWALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Mr.Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms.B.B.Gunjal, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr.Vishnu Kande, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (original informant) ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Applicant has challenged the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, wherein the Criminal Appeal No.15/2009 came to be dismissed. In the said Criminal appeal, the judgment and order dated 16.03.2009 convicting the Applicant in STC No.23/2008 for the offence punishable u/s 279 of the IPC and u/s 304-A of the IPC, was challenged. The Applicant has been sentenced to suffer SI for 3 months for the offence punishable u/s 279 of the IPC, whereas u/s 304 of the IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer SI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer SI for 3 months. khs/Sept.2026/59 2026:BHC-AUG:40475 - 2 - 2. This Criminal Revision Application was listed on 18.02.2022 on which date, the substantive sentence as referred above was suspended. Thereafter the matter was listed for final hearing today. During the course of hearing, the learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the informant, who is the son of deceased Ramkishan has compromised the matter and as such not interested in pursuing the instant Criminal Revision Application, and therefore accused and the informant have submitted the compromise terms, which have been tendered during the course of hearing. Since, the informant is not a party here, therefore, he is directed to be added as party respondent. Necessary correction be carried out forthwith. The compromise terms are also taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for the purpose of identification. The newly added informant Sandip Ramkishan Panchal has been identified as he is possessing the Aadhar Card alongwith him. The compromise terms discloses that in view of the past good relations of the Applicant as well as informant and to maintain good relations between them in future, the Applicant and the original informant have decided to put an end to the litigation. Therefore, meetings took place between them and their relatives at their native place and accordingly the informant and the relatives of the deceased have agreed to settle khs/Sept.2026/59 - 3 - the dispute. It is further submitted that the Applicant is now aged about 68 years. Looking to his old age, the relatives of the deceased and the informant have decided to settle the dispute. 3. However, the fact remains that the Applicant came to be convicted u/s 304-A of the IPC. The same not being the compoundable offence, therefore, the learned Advocate for the Applicant relies upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Puttuswami Vs. State of Karnataka [2009 AIR SCW 1744], the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said verdict in an identical case, has permitted the parties to compromise the dispute, thereby maintaining the conviction, however, the fine amount came to be increased. In another judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for the Applicant, on the judgment delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No.3163/2023 (Anandraj Manikam and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) dated 18.10.2023 by the Principal Seat of this Court, wherein in an identical accident matter, the accused has been directed to pay the fine amount and accordingly accused have paid fine amount and the matter was disposed off accepting the compromise terms between the parties. khs/Sept.2026/59 - 4 - 4. Thus in view of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that Section 304-A of the IPC is punishable for a term which may extend upto 2 years or with fine or with both. When the parties have arrived at a compromise and they are not intending to prosecute further the accused persons in that event, the Hon’ble Court have disposed of the matters by accepting the compromise terms. 5. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the Applicant under Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC is maintained. However, instead of sending him to jail, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside. Instead, the Applicant is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- to be deposited in the Trial Court within 2 (two) weeks from today, apart from the fine amount. The Applicant is further directed to pay the costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Government Pleaders’ Library, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. 6. In view of the above, the application stands disposed of in terms of compromise. The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. The sureties furnished, if any, stand discharged. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) khs/Sept.2026/59