1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2016
  6. /
  7. January

Mukesh Laxminarayan Khatri vs State Of Gujarat &

High Court Of Gujarat|05 May, 2016
MUKESH LAXMINARAYAN KHATRI....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ==================================== Appearance:
MR SL VAISHYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR KL PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH Date : 05/05/2016 ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. S. L. Vaishya, the learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. K. L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 - State are present.
2. In pursuance to notice issued by this Court, Mr. K. L. Dave, learned advocate appeared and stated that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No. 2 and he will file his appearance during the course of the day.
3. The learned advocate for the parties jointly submit that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and now, there is no dispute between the parties. An affidavit to that effect is also tendered, which is taken on record. Besides, the learned advocate for the applicant submits that in view of decision of Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Fri May 06 00:16:32 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/270/2016 ORDER the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907, the applicant herein is ready to pay 15% of the total amount of Rs.2,55,000/­, which comes to Rs.38,250/­, in the High Court Legal Services Committee during the course of the day.
4. Under the circumstances, the Registry is directed to accept the above referred amount of Rs.38,250/­ and transmit the same to the High Court Legal Services Committee after following due procedure.
5. Applying the aforesaid ratio of decision in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that this Revision Application is required to be allowed and the applicant be permitted to compound the offence.
6. In the result, present revision application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 10/05/2012, passed in Criminal Case No. 171 of 2004 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa as also the judgment and order dated 31/03/2016, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2012 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa, are hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant is permitted to compound the offence. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
[ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Fri May 06 00:16:32 IST 2016
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.