1. Rule. Learned A.P.P., Mr.H.L. Jani for the respondent no.1State of Gujarat and learned counsel, Ms.Archana Acharya for the respondent no.2original complainant waive service of notice of rule.
2. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and order passed by the Learned 9th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Private Criminal Case No.154 of 2002 dated 09.02.2011 as well as judgment and order passed by the Learned 7th (Adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2011 dated 29.02.2012.
3. Heard learned counsel, Ms.Kruti Shah for the applicants, learned APP Mr.Jani for the respondent no.1State and learned counsel, Ms.Archana Acharya for the respondent no.2.
4. Learned counsel, Mr.Acharya has tendered an affidavit of the respondent no.2 stating that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.
5. The parties are present in the Court, who have been identified by their respective advocates. The parties have also confirmed about the settlement having been arrived at between them.
6. In view of this development, 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.” 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.
7. In the circumstances, the present Criminal Revision Application stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned 9th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Private Criminal Case No.154 of 2002 dated 09.02.2011 confirmed by the Learned 7th (Adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2011 dated 29.02.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the parties are allowed to compound the offence.
8. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)
/patil