PRAVINBHAI JETHABHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 12.04.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palanpur by which application Exh.5 filed by the petitioner in Criminal Case No.4664 of 2006 came to be dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts are as follow: The petitioner had filed Criminal Case No.4664 of 2006 alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 114 thereof. On 12.04.2007 the petitioner and the accused jointly filled up a form stating that there has been a settlement arrived at between the parties and the case may be taken up for appropriate orders. On this, the learned Magistrate on 12.04.2007 accepted the compromise pursis and ordered release of the accused as acquitted. On 12.04.2007 itself the petitioner filed application Exh.5 and stated before the Court that soon after filing the compromise pursis, the accused once again threatened him and he, therefore, does not want to compromise. On this application, learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 12.04.2007 recording as under:

(3.) I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Though prima facie I agree that the learned Magistrate could not have disposed of the criminal case on 12.04.2007 itself since the very form filled up by the petitioner and the accused pertains to the proceedings before the Lok Adalat and it is not the case of the learned Magistrate that the case was disposed before the Lok Adalat. I would have considered the case but for the fact that the petitioner has not joined the original accused as party respondent in the present proceedings. Effect of the acceptance by the learned Magistrate of the compromise pursis between the parties was that the accused was acquitted. Thus, the accused stood acquitted on 12.04.2007 i.e. three and half years have passed by now. Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, sought permission to join the accused as party respondent in the present proceedings. Any such attempt would be highly belated. If the petition was filed with delay of three and half years the petitioner would have been confronted with the question of delay and latches. While the accused has earned his acquittal more than three and half years back, as also considering the nature of acquisition, I do not find that the case should be re-opened at this stage.