TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Grants Condonation for Delay, Restores Proceedings, Acquits Applicant in Criminal Cases</h1> <h3>Mahendrasingh Fulsingh Zhala Versus James Manilal Rathod and Ors.</h3> Mahendrasingh Fulsingh Zhala Versus James Manilal Rathod and Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Condonation of delay in preferring Restoration Application in Criminal Revision Application No. 822 of 2016.2. Restoration of original proceedings in Criminal Revision Application No. 822 of 2016.3. Quashing of judgment and order in Criminal Case No. 600 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2014.Issue 1: Condonation of DelayThe applicant sought condonation of a 120-day delay in preferring a Restoration Application in Criminal Revision Application No. 822 of 2016. After hearing the advocates for both parties and considering the explanations provided, the delay was deemed sufficiently explained, leading to the condonation of the 120-day delay.Issue 2: Restoration of Original ProceedingsThe court, after hearing the advocates for the applicant and the respondent No. 1, ordered the restoration of the original proceedings in Criminal Revision Application No. 822 of 2016 to its original file. The court considered the facts of the case, averments made in the application, and submissions by the advocates before making this decision.Issue 3: Quashing of Judgment and OrderThe applicant, the original accused, filed an application to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 600 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2014. The applicant's advocate argued that a settlement had been reached between the parties, with the accused paying the full cheque amount to the complainant. The complainant also submitted an affidavit stating no objection to quashing the previous judgments. The court, considering the private nature of the offence and the settlement between the parties, allowed the application. The court quashed the previous judgments and orders, acquitted the applicant from the charges, and ordered the release of the applicant from judicial custody, if not required in any other offence.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of condonation of delay, restoration of original proceedings, and quashing of previous judgments and orders. The court carefully considered the explanations provided, the nature of the offences, and the settlements reached between the parties before making its decisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
