Amrit Traders vs State

Virender Singh, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 71292 of 2005

This is an application for preponing the date of hearing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice of motion on the main revision petition as well as on Criminal Misc. for suspension of sentence has already issued by this Court for 16.2.2006 vide order dated 13.12.2005.

It is stated in the instant application that the petitioner and the complainant have now amicably settled the matter in which the complainant Amrik Singh has received the entire amount due from the petitioner. In this regard, the complainant has also tendered his affidavit. This fact is not disputed by Ms. Shelly Sharma, learned counsel for respondent-complainant. She has made a categoric statement in this regard after getting instructions from her client Amrik Singh who is also present in the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid factual position, the present revision petition be preponed to today and be disposed of finally also.

The instant application is allowed. The main revision petition in which notice of motion has been issued for 16.2.2006 is preponed to today.

Crl. Misc. No. 71293 of 2005

The instant application is for permitting the complainant to compound the offence. The affidavit of the complainant is attached along with the instant application in which he has categorically averred that he has already received the entire amount outstanding against the petitioner and nothing is due towards the petitioner. In view of above, the instant application is allowed.

Crl. Revn. No. 2289 of 2005

Admitted.

I am disposing of the main petition today itself.

Both the parties who are being represented by their respective counsel have made a statement that the parties have amicably settled their dispute in which complainant Amrik Singh has already received the entire amount outstanding from the petitioner. The affidavit to this effect is already on the file.

Complainant Amrik Singh is also present in the Court who is identified by his counsel Ms. Shelly Sharma. The complainant supporting his affidavit which is already on the file reiterates that he has received the entire amount from the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties have been permitted to compound the offence. The Misc. application in this regard stands allowed by a separate order of even date. The complainant states that nothing is outstanding from the petitioner and the amount has been paid in full. In view of above, the instant petition deserves to be allowed. My view is supported by a latest judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in K. Gyansagar v. Ganesh Gupta and another, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1593 and another judgment of this Court rendered in M/s Narindera Textile v. Girdhari Lal Bansal, 2001 (2) RCR (Cri) 616 : 2001 ISJ (Ban) 525.

Ordered accordingly.

The conviction as recorded by the trial Court and subsequently upheld by the lower appellate Court is hereby set aside. The petitioner is stated to be in custody. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Concerned quarters be informed without any delay.