Suresh Balaram Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

1/3 nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.239 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.286 OF 2015 Suresh Balram Patil ...Applicant

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. Munna Sitaram Pujari

...Respondents

Mr.Girish Pawar h/f Mr.A.A.Dubey, for the Applicant Mr.A.S.Shitole, A.P.P for the Respondent-State Mr.Balbheem Patil, for the Respondent No.2.

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 13th JULY, 2016 P.C. :

1.

Learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondent No. 2 state that the parties have arrived at a settlement and tender the Consent Terms dated 13th July, 2016, duly signed by the parties. The same are taken on record and marked `X' for identification. Both the applicant and the respondent No. 2 are present in Court and have been identified by their respective Counsel.

2/3 2.

As recorded in the Consent Terms, the applicant has agreed to pay the respondent No. 2 a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- by way of full and final settlement. As per the Consent Terms, the applicant has no objection if the respondent No. 2 withdraws the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- deposited by the applicant, in the Trial Court. The respondent No. 2 has also given his no objection, to the quashing and setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 5th June, 2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai in C.C.No.2212/SS/2011 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Greater Bombay, vide judgment and order dated 17th October, 2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2014. 3.

In view of the Consent Terms, the impugned judgment and order dated 5th June, 2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Greater Bombay, vide judgment and order dated 17th October, 2014, are quashed and set-aside and the applicant is acquitted of the offence with which he is charged.

3/3 4.

Respondent No.2 is permitted to withdraw the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- deposited by the applicant, in the Trial Court, on furnishing the proof of his identity.

5.

Application is accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 6.

In view of the above order, Criminal Application No.239 of 2016 does not survive. The same stands disposed of accordingly. 7.

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