Rushikumar Keshavlal Oza vs State Of Gujarat

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

By way of this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has

challenged the legality and validity of order of conviction dated 19.06.2021 passed by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Banaskantha,

Palanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2018 below Exh.17, by virtue of which, order of conviction dated 05.05.2018 passed by learned 2nd Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur in Criminal Case No. 4156 of 2015 came to be confirmed and consequently, has sought for acquittal on the said

case.

During the passage of time, the issue is resolved amicably between the parties to the proceedings and as such, learned advocate Mr. N. K.

Majmudar appearing for the applicant and learned advocate Ms. Chinmayi Trivedi appearing for respondent No.2 â€" original complainant have

requested to dispose of the revision application. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

Learned advocate Mr. N. K. Majmudar, from the record, has indicated that the issue is resolved between the parties amicably and for that purpose,

a specific writing is executed, which is produced on page 60 onward of the present proceedings and by virtue of said writing dated 05.07.2021, the

original complainant has confirmed the factum of payment of Rs.1 Lac by way of cash and has said that there is no other exchange of amount

between the parties and this settlement has taken place with freewill and without any coercion.

As against this, learned advocate Ms. Chinmayi Trivedi appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 â€" original complainant has submitted that the

settlement has taken place and under the instructions, learned advocate has confirmed the factum of settlement, which is reflecting in the documents

on page 60 onward and has submitted further that the complainant is present along with her in the office through video conference. In the said

process, the complainant Mr. Manojkumar Salikram Tulsiyani who is present has stated that the settlement has taken place and he has no grievance of

any nature and he has received the amount which has been indicated in the document as stated above and has further submitted that this settlement

has taken place without any pressure or coercion and has readily accepted the terms of the settlement. The complainant is identified by learned

advocate Ms. Trivedi and has requested to dispose of the proceedings upon aforesaid settlement.

Even the said fact which has been stated by learned advocate for the complainant is inquired by the Court by putting query upon the complainant

who is present along with his learned advocate and upon such query about settlement, he has specifically conveyed that the settlement is confirmed by

him and no grievance is left out and hence, has requested to dispose of the proceedings on the basis of settlement.

In view of aforesaid circumstance which is prevailing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J. K. Shah appearing on behalf of the State has

also requested the Court that now, since both the parties have settled the dispute and the offence is compoundable, the same may be permitted to be

compounded by disposing of the present proceedings.

In view of aforesaid factum of settlement, in one decision delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Balalal H.

reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, in which, it has been propounded that while compounding the offence, cost is required to be paid to the Legal Services

Authority by the applicant accused. This being the situation, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar, under the instructions, has stated that a reasonable cost

may be imposed upon, which may not add burden to the applicant and as such, has left it to the discretion of the Court.

Having gone through the aforesaid decision delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court and as submitted by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that since

the applicant accused is coming from a lower strata income group and is not having sufficient means of earning and further, has somehow managed to

pay the amount so as to resolve the dispute, a request is made to reduce the amount of cost.

Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having inquired from learned advocates about the status of the applicant

and his financial condition, the totality of circumstance has led to a situation that the cost of Rs.7500/- is imposed upon the applicant to be paid to the

Legal Services Authority within 15 days from today, which would be just and proper and reasonable to the background of the present facts.

Accordingly, in view of facts and circumstances stated herein above, the present Criminal Revision Application is allowed and the offence being

permitted to be compounded, as a consequence thereof, order of conviction dated 19.06.2021 passed by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Banaskantha, Palanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2018 below Exh.17 and order of conviction dated 05.05.2018 passed by learned 2nd Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur in Criminal Case No. 4156 of 2015 are quashed and set aside. The proceedings are disposed of as compounded.