SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jitendra Omprakash Zanwar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 December, 2018

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 20/12/2018
911.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
911 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3527 OF 2018

JITENDRA OMPRAKASH ZANWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Jethliya Dhiraj R.
APP for Respondent State: Mr. A. V. Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Narwade Santosh B.
CORAM : K. L. WADANE, J.
DATE : 11th December, 2018
ORDER:

1. This is an application presented by the applicant/original

accused seeking permission to compound the offence, as the accused is

convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian

Penal Code, which is non compoundable.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the

State and learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2.

3. Applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under

section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. Learned

counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant preferred an appeal

1/4

::: Uploaded on – 13/12/2018 27/12/2018 05:40:22 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 20/12/2018

911.odt
against his conviction and it is pending in the Court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge at Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, bearing Criminal

Appeal No. 35 of 2012. The learned counsel of the applicant, submits

that there is compromise between the applicant and respondent no.2 and

compromise pursis was submitted before the learned Additional

Sessions Judge for compounding the offence, however the same was

refused on the ground that offence is non compoundable.

4. Today learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.2

have presented a joint affidavit of compromise. Applicant and

respondent no.2 are present in the court in person. They have admitted

the contents of the compromise. Both of them have stated that incident

had taken place due to misunderstanding. Both of them, by way of

affidavit, have jointly requested to quash and set aside the order of

conviction of the applicant. The compromise purshis is taken on record

and marked “X”for the purpose of identification.

5. Since the offence proved against the applicant is non

compoundable, the learned Additional Session Judge rejected such

compromise. Looking to the contents of the joint pursis/affidavit, it

reveals that applicant and respondent No.2 voluntarily compromised

2/4

::: Uploaded on – 13/12/2018 27/12/2018 05:40:22 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 20/12/2018

911.odt
the dispute and requested to compound the offence. This Court is

satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and without any influence.

Offense under section 354 I.P.C. does not fall within the category of

serious offence of mental depravity or the offenes like murder, rape

docaity, as contemplated in the case of Narinder Singh and others

Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, permission can be granted to

compound the offence though it is not compoundable.

6. In view of the above and considering the facts and

circumstances, the applicant-accused and respondent No.2-complainant

are allowed to compound the offence. Hence the criminal application is

allowed.

7. Judgment and order of conviction passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, First Class Ambajogail dated 12.07.2012 in SCC No. 814 of

2010 is hereby quashed and set aside.

8. Applicant Jitendra Zanwar is acquitted for the offence

punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine amount,

if paid by the applicant shall be refunded to the applicant.

3/4

::: Uploaded on – 13/12/2018 27/12/2018 05:40:22 :::

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 20/12/2018

911.odt

9. In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No.12 pending before

the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai is also disposed of.

10. Criminal application is accordingly disposed of.

(K. L. WADANE, J.)
JPC

4/4

::: Uploaded on – 13/12/2018 27/12/2018 05:40:22 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation