Parag Ranjit Kumthekar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

REVN.ST.274.15.32.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 274 OF 2015 Parag Ranjit Kumthekar ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Balwant Salunkhe for the Applicant Mr. A. S. Shitole, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1-State Mr. Hamid Mulla for the Respondent No. 2 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

FRIDAY, 29 th JULY, 2016 P.C. :

1.

At the outset, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 seeks one week's time to file his vakalatnama. The said statement is accepted. 2.

Learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondent No. 2 state that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the Consent Terms which are at page 39 of the aforesaid revision application in support of his submission. The respondent No.2 has also tendered his affidavit, which is taken on record. SQ Pathan 1/2

REVN.ST.274.15.32.doc 3.

According to the respondent No. 2, he has settled the matter amicably with the applicant on 12th December, 2014 by a Compromise Deed. He has stated that he has received the entire amount of Rs. 60,000/- and has no objection for quashing and setting-aside of the impugned judgments. The respondent No. 2 is present in Court and has been identified by his Counsel.

4.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned judgments and order dated 30th July, 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaysingpur in Summary Criminal Case No. 496 of 2008 and judgment and order dated 6th October, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2011, are quashed and set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the offence with which he is charged.

5.

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

SQ Pathan 2/2