925.REVN.13.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2022 Nashiroddin @ Noor Shabbir Bagwan ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Another ...Respondents *** Mr. Bhosle Abhaysinh K., Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Bharati B. Gunjal, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. Amol A. Pawar h/f Mr. S. G. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Pawar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, and Ms. Gunjal, learned APP appearing for Respondent–State. 2. Today, the Applicant as well as Respondent No.2 are present in person before this Court. They have been identified by their respective learned counsel. They have submitted the affidavit of Respondent No.2. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked as “X” for the purpose of identification. Shrikant Malani 2026:BHC-AUG:42001 925.REVN.13.2022.doc 3. As per the said affidavit, Respondent No.2 states that she and the Applicant are residing in the same locality and are well acquainted with each other since long. Respondent No.2 states that the complaint was filed against the Applicant in a revengeful manner. Respondent No.2 states that she is ready to waive all the allegations levelled against the Applicant and has no objection if the revision application is allowed. She further states that at the instance of reputed persons and elders of the village, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and both the parties have decided to maintain cordial and harmonious relations amongst themselves and, therefore, in short, Respondent No.2 has given her no objection for allowing the instant revision application. 4. Per contra, Mrs. Gunjal, learned APP, strongly opposes the instant arrangement made by the parties by way of compromise. She states that the State machinery was put into action and the complaint was filed in the year 2014. The State has suffered considerable expenses in investigating as well as prosecuting the Applicant– Accused. She further submits that the instant crime was not only against a woman but also against the society and the instant crime may not be compounded. She further submits that, if this Court is Shrikant Malani 925.REVN.13.2022.doc willing to accept the compromise, some costs may be imposed on the parties. 5. The Applicant was prosecuted vide R.C.C. No.232 of 2015 in view of Crime No. I-247 of 2014 registered with MIDC Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354-B, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said crime was registered against two accused persons, including the Applicant; however, the other accused person was acquitted. The Applicant was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, vide order dated 05th July 2017 passed in R.C.C. No.232 of 2015. The Applicant thereafter preferred an Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2017 and the same also came to be dismissed. Now, the Applicant has preferred this Revision Application challenging the said judgments and orders passed by the subordinate Courts, and now the parties have settled the matter. This Court feels that there is no difficulty in accepting the compromise between the parties since Respondent No.2 was the complainant and victim and the compromise has been arrived at after a period of almost eight years. Since the compromise is tendered before this Court and Respondent No.2 is having no objection to allowing the instant Shrikant Malani 925.REVN.13.2022.doc Criminal Revision Application, hence, the instant Criminal Revision Application is allowed with costs. 6. The judgments and orders passed by the learned subordinate Courts are hereby quashed and set aside. The Applicant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354-B, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7. The Applicant is directed to pay costs of 15,000/- to the ₹ High Court Dispensary within a period of two weeks from today. 8. The Criminal Revision Application is allowed in the above terms. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) Shrikant Malani