1. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2009 dated 06.02.2012 confirming the judgment and order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Maliya (Miyana) in Criminal Case No.170 of 2003 dated 30.09.2009.
2. The present matter was admitted by this Court (Coram : Z.K. Saiyed, J.). Today, when the matter was called out, the parties are present in the Court with compromise purshis, which is tendered recording the terms of compromise/settlement having been arrived at between the parties.
3. Learned counsel, Mr.Pravin Gondaliya for the applicant as well as learned counsel, Mr.Meghna Pandya for the respondent no.2original complainant have identified the respective parties, who are present in the Court and they have also confirmed about the compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. In view of above, without entering into any detailed discussions and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Madan Mohan Abbot V/s State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para No.6 has observed that “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”, the present application deserves to be allowed. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines and the facts of the present case, where no public policy can be said to have been involved and when the dispute is between the parties, which is of personal nature, the compromise deserves to be accepted.
5. In the circumstances, the present Criminal Revision Application stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2009 dated 06.02.2012 and the judgment and order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Maliya (Miyana) in Criminal Case No.170 of 2003 dated 30.09.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which is accepted. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)
/patil