Rule.
Service of rule is waived by learned APP Mr. KP Raval for respondent No. 1-State and learned advocate Mr. Wasim Pathan for respondent No.
2. The present revision application has been filed by the applicants original accused challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 160/2011 dated 18.2.2012 on the grounds stated in the revision application.
2. However, at the time of hearing of this revision application, respondent No. 2-original complainant Shri Satishkumar B. Gandhi is present and has filed an affidavit stating that as he has settled the issue with the intervention of trade persons of the business he has no objection if this application and the Criminal Misc. Application filed by the accused persons is allowed.
3. Learned advocate Mr. A.A. Ansari with learned advocate Mr. A.A. Shaikh has stated that applicant No.2 original accused Hiralal Bhagwandas Kanjari who has been convicted and sentenced as per the judgment of the Sessions Court confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial court has been in jail since April 2012. Though he was earlier released on bail, subsequently he has been arrested. He has stated that in view of the settlement, the present revision application may be allowed to which the complainant, respondent No.2, has no objection who is represented by learned advocate Mr. Wasim M. Pathan.
4. Therefore, in view of the affidavit filed by the original complainant and considering the provisions of law permitting compounding of such offence and also in light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present revision application deserves to be allowed.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot V/s State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has observed, "We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
6. Therefore, the present revision application deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 160/2011 confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 100/2010 dated 8.4.2011 regarding conviction is also set aside. Applicant No. 2 is ordered to be released from jail forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute.
7. In view of the order passed in this application, Criminal Misc. Application No. 5829 of 2012 stands disposed of. D.S. Permitted.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn) Top