Settlement post-conviction for non-compoundable offences cannot quash convictions; it's a mitigating factor for sentencing only.

1. The contentious issue as regards the scope of power exercisable under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') when a prayer is made for quashing criminal proceedings / conviction at the instance of a convict after his conviction for a non - compoundable offence on account of settlement between the convict and the victim / complainant falls for determination before this larger bench. Decisions leading to the reference : -

2. At the outset we may refer to the decisions that have led to making of the present reference.
In Criminal Application No.0382 of 2018 ( Udhav Kisanrao Ghodse v. State of Maharashtra ) the accused were tried for having committed offence punishable under S.323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Penal Code'). In addition the accused No.1 was convicted for committing offence punishable under S.447 and S.354 of the Penal Code. The order of conviction was challenged before the Sessions Court by preferring an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused and the informant arrived at a compromise and the said parties approached this Court under S.482 of the Code especially in the backdrop of the fact that the offence under S.354 of the Penal Code was non - compoundable. The Division Bench at Aurangabad, after referring to the decision of the Full Bench in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane v. State of Maharashtra 2008 (2) Mh L J 856 as well as decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012 AIR SCW 5333), vide its judgment dated 26.02.2018 proceeded to hold that since the parties had decided to maintain good and cordial relations in future and such thought was necessary for the society, inherent powers under S.482 of the Code were required to be invoked. Accordingly the informant was permitted to compound all the offences including the one under S.354 of the Penal Code. Consequently the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate was set aside.
In Criminal Application (APL) No.750/2019 ( Ajmatkhan S/o. Rahematkhan, and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra ) the accused had been convicted by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under S.354 and S.452 of the Penal Code. The appeal preferred by the convicts came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court. Thereafter the convicts and the informant approached this Court under S.482 of the Code and by relying upon the decision in Udhav K. Ghodse (supra) sought quashing of the entire proceedings. The Division Bench at Nagpur by its order dated 06.08.2019 relying upon the said judgment and finding such approach necessary for the society permitted the informant to compound the offence punishable under S.354 and S.452 of the Penal Code.
The judgment of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the judgment of the Sessions Court in appeal came to be set aside and the convicts were acquitted of all the offences.
Thereafter in Criminal Application (APL) No.1028/2019 : (Reported in (2020) 2 Bom CR (Cri) 402)( Shivaji Haribhau Jawanjal v. State of Maharashtra ) an accuse