Bombay HC quashes conviction after doctor, accused reach settlement

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has given major relief to five accused convicted in a case involving a dispute with a doctor. The court quashed both the conviction order and the subsequent appellate verdict, holding that the complainant doctor and the accused had reached a voluntary settlement and that the offence did not fall in the serious or heinous category. The order was passed by Justice Mehroz Pathan.

In its order, the High Court clarified that even after an accused has been convicted, if an appeal or revision against the conviction is pending and the aggrieved party has voluntarily settled the matter, the court can, in appropriate cases, use its inherent powers to bring criminal proceedings to an end. However, the court also noted that such power must be exercised with caution, taking into account the facts of each case and the nature of the offence.

The case relates to the Hinganghat court. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat, had on 26 February 2016 convicted the accused, including Nitin alias Bunty Jangle, Kunal Jawade, Subhash Soyam, Vikas alias Vicky Muneshwar and Anil Moon, under various sections. The court had sentenced the accused to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The charges in the case were under Sections 143, 147, 452, 448, 294, 323, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 4 of the Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions Act.

The accused had appealed against the lower court's verdict before the Sessions Court. After the hearing, the Sessions Court upheld their conviction but reduced the sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment. Each accused was also fined Rs 5,000. Dissatisfied with the Sessions Court's verdict, the accused approached the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court with a revision application.

During the hearing before the High Court, the settlement reached between the complainant doctor and the accused was placed before the court. The doctor told the court that he had entered into the settlement of his own free will, without any pressure or coercion. He said he wanted to permanently resolve the old dispute and move forward peacefully. No conditions had been attached by him for the settlement.

The High Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the Ramawatar case in this regard. The court said the power to end proceedings on the basis of a settlement after conviction must be exercised with great care. The court has to consider factors such as the nature of the offence, the severity of the injury or the incident, whether the settlement between the parties was voluntary, and the conduct of the accused. This power can be used only when an appeal or other legal remedy against the conviction is pending before the court.

Taking into account the facts of the case and the settlement between the parties, the High Court found that the settlement was voluntary and that the offence did not fall in the category of serious or heinous crimes. The High Court then used its inherent powers to quash both the 2016 conviction and the 2022 appellate verdict of the Sessions Court.

However, the High Court attached a condition to this relief. As per the order, each accused will have to deposit Rs 10,000 with the High Court Legal Aid Sub-Committee. This amount has to be deposited within two weeks. The next hearing in the case regarding compliance with the order will be held on 30 September.