938wp767-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 938 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 767 OF 2026 Pravin Gahininath Rankhamb And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ... Mr. Kasat Rahul Kishanprasad, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent-State Mr. Ramesh N. Dhakane, Advocate for Respondents CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 8th September, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition arises out of the conviction order dated 28.01.2020, wherein, the applicants have been convicted under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed in Regular Criminal Case No. 454 of 2015. He submits that against the said order, statutory appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, Beed by way of Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2020, in which an application was moved by the petitioners for compounding the offence. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, by order dated 07.02.2026, on the ground that 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:41570 938wp767-26 the offences are non-compoundable and that, at the stage where the trial court is exercising statutory appellate powers, cannot compound the said offences once the accused persons are convicted. The present writ petition is, thus, filed on the ground of settlement between the parties. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the parties have arrived at a joint settlement in which they have agreed to resolve all the dispute among themselves. The parties are related to each other and there was a standing dispute over the immovable property. That property dispute has also been resolved amicably between the parties and now they have decided to cohabit with each other peacefully. The parties have appeared before the learned Registrar (Judicial) and got themselves verified. The report to that effect is also filed before this Court. 4. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 reiterates the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. He also submits that the parties have settled the dispute and the respondent No. 2 does not want that the petitioners be prosecuted any further for the offence that are levelled against them, which subsequently led to conviction. 5. The learned APP, however, strongly opposes the petition by stating that a private complaint has led into a trial and subsequently, 2 of 4 938wp767-26 the petitioners were found guilty and were convicted by the trial court. The petitioners have already preferred the statutory appeal and therefore the quashing proceedings, at this stage, on the ground of settlement, will not be in accordance with law. He prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties. The record shows that though the offences alleged are bodily injuries, yet, the dispute over which the offence is alleged to have been committed is a civil dispute among the relatives. This brings the dispute into the framework of a private dispute. The joint pursis noting the compromise specifically states that as the parties are related to each other and they have amicably settled the dispute over the property itself, now there is least possibility that there will be any differences and they have decided to cohabit peacefully. 7. Taking into consideration the nature of offence and the compromise between the parties, I am inclined to allow the present Petition, however, subject to payment of costs by all the parties in the present petition i.e. four petitioners and respondent no.2. Hence, the following order:- 3 of 4 938wp767-26 O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition stands allowed. (ii) The judgment and order dated 28.01.2020, in respect of the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed in Regular Criminal Case No. 454 of 2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequentially, Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2020 pending on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Beed is also quashed and set aside. (iii) The petitioners and respondent no.2 shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, to be deposited with the District Government Cancer Hospital, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. (iv) The order will take its effect from the date of submission of the receipt of payment from both the sides to the Registry of this Court. The acknowledgment receipt of payment shall be the part of the proceeding. The cost to be paid within a period of four weeks from today. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 4 of 4