Court Grants Condonation for Delay, Restores Proceedings, Acquits Applicant in Criminal Cases

The court granted condonation of a 120-day delay in preferring a Restoration Application in Criminal Revision Application No. 822 of 2016. It ordered the restoration of original proceedings in the same case. Additionally, the court quashed the judgment and order in Criminal Case No. 600 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2014, acquitting the applicant and ordering their release from judicial custody due to a settlement between the parties.

---

---

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 Delay
The 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 Proceedings
The 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 Order
The 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.

---