1 31-revn-61-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 61 OF 2025 Pravin S/o Laxmanrao Gaidhane Versus Swati Haribhau Rangari CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO. 246 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL REVISION STAMP NO. 10108 OF 2025 Swati Haribhau Rangari Versus Pravin S/o Laxmanrao Gaidhane Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri C.B.Bailmare, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Anushree Pande, Advocate for the non-applicant. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 5th OCTOBER, 2026. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the non-applicant. Both the learned counsel of the applicant as well as non-applicant submits that dispute was about the dishonour of the cheque which was to the tune of Rs.7,75,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court has convicted the applicant and SKNair 2026:BHC-NAG:13427 2 31-revn-61-25.odt imposed punishment till rising of the Court and directed the applicant to pay the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. The applicant/accused challenged the said order by way of appeal before the appellate Court, which has allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs. 7,75,000/- i.e. the cheque amount. The aforesaid judgment dated 21.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2016 is under challenge in the present revision application by the accused/applicant. 2. It is pertinent to note that the complainant/non-applicant has also filed another criminal revision No. 10108 of 2025 along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision application whereby the complainant challenges the reduction of the compensation amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to amount of cheque i.e. Rs. 7,75,000/-. 3. Both the learned counsel for the applicant as well as non- applicant submits that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and the joint affidavit – cum- memorandum of settlement is already placed on record which is recorded by this Court in its order dated 28.09.2026. 4. The perusal of the joint affidavit -cum- memorandum of settlement would show that the applicant/accused in revision no. 61 of SKNair 3 31-revn-61-25.odt 2025 has deposited an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- before the Appellate Court and has further deposited Rs.1,93,750/- before this Court during the pendency of Criminal Revision. The terms of settlement further states that an amount of Rs.5,31,250/- would be paid directly to the non- applicant towards the settlement. Thus, a total amount of Rs.9,50,000/- is to be paid by the applicant to the non-applicant towards full and final settlement of the dispute between the applicant and the non-applicant. 5. Shri Bailmare, learned counsel further submits that demand draft of remaining balance of the Rs.5,31,250/- is handed over to the non-applicant. Ms. Anushree Pande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant acknowledges the receipt of the demand draft in the name of the complainant. 6. Both the learned counsel therefore prays for quashing of the application on account of settlement of the dispute which is monetary in nature. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635, was pleased to observe as under :- “11. The Court in Ramgopal .vs. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531 further postulated that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous SKNair 4 31-revn-61-25.odt offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post-conviction, the Courts should, interalia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held: (SCC para 19) “19… Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: 19.1 Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; 19.2 Seriousness of the injury, if any; 19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & 19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” [Emphasis Applied] 12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused. 13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sinequanon to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollowhearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).” SKNair 5 31-revn-61-25.odt 8. Thus, the condition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra) is, that the litigation should not have attained finality, the conviction can be set aside provided that the settlement is voluntarily and not forcible. 9. The joint affidavit cum-memorandum of settlement submitted by bears the signatures of both the applicant as well as the non-applicant, shows that settlement is voluntary in nature, and the conditions that the impugned judgment of conviction has not attained finality also stands satisfied. The complainant who is present in the Court and acknowledges the receipt of the Demand Draft of Rs.5,31,250/- and also states that she has no objection about the quashing of the conviction of the applicant and the application for delay in revision filed by her may be permitted to withdraw. Thus, the settlement appears to be voluntary in nature. The pendency of the revision is one of the condition. Thus, both the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for quashing of the conviction on account of settlement, stands satisfied, I am therefore inclined to exercise the inherent power under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure SKNair 6 31-revn-61-25.odt for quashing of the conviction on account of settlement and pass the following order. ORDER i. Criminal Revision Application No. 61 of 2025 is allowed. ii. The conviction of the applicant in Summary Criminal Case No. 1854 of 2014 passed by the 16th Judicial Magistrate First Class and Special Court for Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Nagpur vide judgment dated 31.03.2016 and Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide judgment dated 21.02.2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The criminal application no. 246 of 2025 filed by the complainant for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision application stamp no. 10108 of 2025 stands disposed of as withdrawn by the complainant. 10. Both the criminal application stand disposed of accordingly. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 13:02:11