Bombay High Court Allows Quashing of Conviction in Criminal Trespass and Outraging Modesty Case Based on Compromise Between Accused and Complainant. The court held that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised even after conviction to prevent abuse of process, and quashed the conviction and sentence under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506 IPC as the parties had settled the dispute.

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings after conviction.

The applicants (accused and complainant jointly) sought quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings, and the conviction and sentence of the accused.

The parties had entered into a compromise and the complainant did not wish to prosecute the accused further.

The accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur on 30.08.2016 for offences under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506 IPC, and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court. A revision was pending before a Single Judge of the High Court.

Whether an application under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable after conviction? Whether the conviction and sentence can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant?

The State argued that the application under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable after conviction. The applicants argued that the application is maintainable as held in Kiran Tulshiram Ingale vs. Anupama P. Gaikwad and Ors., and that the compromise is genuine and voluntary.

The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised even after conviction to quash proceedings if the parties have genuinely settled the dispute and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of court.

Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. There is preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondent/State to the maintainability of the application. Mr. Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate for the applicants submits that the issue is no longer res-integra as such an application has been held to be maintainable by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kiran Tulshiram Ingale vs. Anupama P. Gaikwad and Ors. reported in 2006 CrLJ4591, 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 842. This application has been jointly filed by the accused (applicant No.1) and the complainant (applicant No.2). The applicant No.2 had made a complaint against applicant No.1 about the criminal trespass and outraging of her modesty by applicant No.1. He was found guilty of all these offences and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of varying nature as per the judgment and order delivered on 30.08.2016 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur, District Akola. The matter was carried in appeal before concerned Sessions Court and there also conviction and sentence of applicant No.1 was maintained. Now revision challenging the concurrent findings of has been filed by applicant No.2 and it is pending before learned Single Judge of this Court. As regards the maintainability of the application, we can profitably refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kiran Tulshiram Ingale vs. Anupama P. Gaikwad and Ors. (supra). In the present case, the complainant and the accused have settled the dispute and the complainant does not want to prosecute the accused any further. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the application deserves to be allowed.

The accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur on 30.08.2016. The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court. The complainant filed a revision before the High Court. Subsequently, the accused and complainant jointly filed this application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 452, 354, 323, 506