Gujarat High Court
Rajubhai vs State on 9 January, 2012
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
CR.RA/23/2012 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 23 of 2012 ========================================================= RAJUBHAI RAMANBHAI PANCHAL - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ANKUR Y OZA for Applicant(s) : 1,MR NIRAV RAJIV MODI for Applicant(s) : 1, MR HL JANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA Date : 27/01/2012 ORAL ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP Mr. HL Jani waives service of rule for respondent No. 1-State.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ankur Oza for learned advocate Mr. Nirav Modi for the applicant-original accused, learned APP Mr. HL Jani as well as Mr. Suresh Narsinh Sunva, original complainant, respondent No. 2, who is present in the court as party-in-person.
3. The present revision application has been filed for the prayers, inter alia, for suspension of the order of conviction and sentence recorded in Criminal Case No. 87/2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valia and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2007 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, Camp: Ankleshwar vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2012 on the grounds stated in the application.
4. As it transpires from the earlier order passed by the coordinate Bench (Coram: Z.K. Saiyed, J.) dated 18.1.2012, notice has been issued for settlement and learned advocate Mr. Oza for the applicant states that compromise has been arrived at which is reduced to writing and placed on record at Annexure-C, which is confirmed by respondent No. 2, original complainant. Shri Suresh Narsinh Sunva, original complainant, who is present in the court, has also confirmed about having received the amount as stated in this application and therefore he has no objection if the present revision application is allowed and the offence is permitted to be compounded.
5. In the facts and circumstances and considering the judgments reported in 2009(0) GLHEL-SC 47765 in the case of K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed as well as in the case of Bhupendrabhai Shankerbhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011(0) GLHEL-HC 224681, when the parties have amicably arrived at the settlement and the amount has been paid, the revision application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. Prayer in terms of para 7b is granted. The impugned judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2007 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, Camp:
Ankleshwar vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2012 confirming the order passed in Criminal Case No. 87/2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valia, is hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant-accused is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
6. The amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- which has been deposited by the applicant-accused at the Court of Valia as per the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2007 is permitted to be withdrawn by the applicant on usual terms as respondent No.2-complainant has been paid the full amount as per the compromise/settlement.
7. Respondent No.2-complainant who has appeared as party-in-person has tendered his driving licence for personal identification which has been verified by the learned APP as well as by the learned advocate for the applicant-accused who has confirmed and identified the same.
Direct service permitted.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn)