Arifkhan Karimkhan Pthan vs State of Gujarat and 1

Honourable Mr. Justice Rajesh H. Shukla

Rule. Learned A.P.P., Mr.H.L. Jani waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1-State of Gujarat. The authorized representative of the complainant-society, Mr.Vijaybhai Vimleshwaria is present in the Court.

The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the applicant-original accused under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act for the prayer that the impugned judgment and order passed by the 6th Additional Sr. Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bharuch in Criminal Case No.5125 of 2005 dated 10.04.2008 (Annexure-A) confirmed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2008 dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure-B) may be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel, Mr.Majmudar appearing for the applicant has stated that the parties have amicably arrived at settlement and the authorized representative of the respondent no.2-complainant, Mr.Vijaybhai Vimleshwaria is present in the Court, who has confirmed about having settled the dispute. He has also produced letter including Resolution passed by the Society authorizing him to take such steps including the settlement of the dispute in the Court.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Chanana and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, has also observed that as the dispute is of purely personal and not public policy is involved and when the compromise has been entered into by and between the parties, it may be permitted to be settled and the offence may be permitted to be compounded.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, 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.

Therefore, as the dispute is of private nature and the parties have amicably settled the dispute and considering the nature of offence, the present petition deserves to be allowed. It has also been observed by laying down guidelines that the approach should be pragmatic and time could be utilized for deciding effective and meaningful litigation. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the interest would be served if the present application deserves to be allowed.

In the circumstances, the present Criminal Revision Application stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the 6th Additional Sr. Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bharuch in Criminal Case No.5125/2005 dated 10.04.2008 confirmed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2008 vide judgment and order dated 05.09.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is in jail, and, hence, he is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other offence.

Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.