(1) 947crirevn91.22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 947 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 91 OF 2022 Manoj Suresh Patil ….Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra …..Respondent Mr. C. C. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. B. B. Gunjal, APP for the respondents/State CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 04th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP. 2. The Applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 20-06-2017. The Applicant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC vide SCC No. 221/2015 before the learned JMFC, Aurangabad. The learned trial Court was pleased to convict the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 338 and sentencing him to suffer one month simple imprisonment under both the sections. Thereafter, the Applicant has filed the Appeal No.110/2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Court, Aurangabad. The learned Sessions Court 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:41371 (2) 947crirevn91.22 though acquitted the Applicant for the offences 337 & 338, confirmed the sentence under Section 279. Hence, the Applicant has approached this Court. 3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that there was a compromise between the parties before the learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court while considering the said compromise was pleased to acquit the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 337 & 338 (with the permission of court- compoundable). However, said compromise was not considered for the purpose of offences under Section 279 of the IPC as same is non- compoundable and accordingly maintained the conviction under Section 279. He submits that the Applicant in pursuance to the aforesaid conviction has already undergone the sentence of 15 days. The incident is of 2014. The Applicant was a driver in the MSRTC. After the incident, the Applicant having been convicted was removed from the service after holding the departmental enquiry. As such, right now he is not in service of the Corporation. Therefore, he submits that as the compromise took place between the parties, the Applicant be acquitted from the offence under Section 279. Hence, he prays for allowing the instant revision Application. 2 of 4 (3) 947crirevn91.22 4. Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the Application. According to her, offence committed by the Applicant is serious one due to which the informant and his wife have suffered grave injuries. Though the compromise had taken place between the parties, however, crime is against the society as such the said compromise may not be considered at the stage of revision. 5. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties and gone through the impugned orders passed by both the subordinate courts. The offence is of 2014. The Applicant was a driver in MSRTC. While overtaking another vehicle, the accident appears to have caused thereby giving dash to the motorcycle of the informant. Due to which the informant was thrown in Nala. 6. Learned Advocate for the Applicant fairly admits that injuries were grievous. 7. The learned Sessions Court could accept the compromise between the parties since section 337 & 338 are compoundable with the permission of the Court as per Section 320(2) of the Cr. P. C. As regards Section 279 of the IPC the learned Sessions Court, being powerless, could not permit the parties to compound the said offence. However, this Court finds that as the Applicant has undergone 15 days imprisonment and has also been removed from service, therefore, the 3 of 4 (4) 947crirevn91.22 instant criminal Revision Application is disposed off by quashing and setting aside the conviction under Section 279 of the IPC. 8. The Applicant is acquitted for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC. 9. The Criminal Revision Application is disposed off accordingly. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ] VishalK/947crirevn91.22 4 of 4