Janakkumar Narandas Soni vs State of Gujarat and 1

Honourable Mr. Justice Rajesh H. Shukla

Rule. Learned APP Mr. HL Jani waives service of rule for Respondent No. 1-State.

The present revision application has been filed u/s 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for the prayer that the judgment and order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, in Criminal Case No. 283/2008 dated 30.10.2010 may be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 485/2010 confirming the aforesaid judgment and order may also be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the memo of the application.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Patel for the applicant and learned APP Mr. HL Jani for the Respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Mafatlal Muljibhai, Respondent No. 2, was present in the court on a previous day, where the matter was taken up and he has confirmed about having arrived at the settlement which has been reduced to writing and produced at Annexure-B.

Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the applicant submitted that as the parties have amicably settled, for which an understanding has been arrived at and they have executed a writing/settlement, the offence may be permitted to be compounded and the impugned judgment and order recording conviction may be quashed and set aside. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of K. Gyansagar v. Ganesh Gupta and Anr. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 54, submitting that the amount due has been paid in full and therefore the parties may be permitted to compound the offence and the conviction may be set aside.

Learned APP M. Jani has some reservation.

Therefore, having record to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and considering the fact that the entire amount has been paid as stated in the writing/settlement arrived at between the parties produced at Annexure-B, the present revision application deserves to be allowed considering the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of K. Gyansagar v. Ganesh Gupta and Anr. (supra) as well as the observations made in the judgment in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, The Hon''ble Apex Court has observed in this judgment,

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, having regard to the nature of offence and also the fact that it has been amicably settled between the parties, and as observed and laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, time could be saved which can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation and the approach of the courts has to be pragmatic and based on ground of realities, the present application deserves to be allowed.

The application accordingly stands allowed. Prayer in terms of para 8(B) is granted. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, in Criminal Case No. 283/2008 dated 30.10.2010 confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 485/2010, is hereby quashed and set aside. The bail bond of the applicant-appellant shall stand cancelled.

Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.