-: 1 :- revn-352/9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPL. NO. 352 OF 2009 WITH CRIM. APPL. NO. 468 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPL. NO. 352 OF 2009 M/s. Duet Trading Company Ltd and Another. ..Applicants. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. A. Singh i/b A. H. H. Ponda for the applicants. Mr. K. T. Kukreja i/b Devang Singh for R-1. Ms. S. V. Gajare, APP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 30, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. This Revision is filed challenging the order dated 19/8/2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court at Girgaum, Mumbai in Case No. 2886/SS/2005 whereby the Applicant No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and Applicant No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of Court and to pay srp -: 2 :- revn-352/9 fine of Rs.70,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The Complainant was held entitled to receive compensation of Rs.65,000/- out of the fine amount paid by accused no.2 This order was confirmed by the lower appellate Court on 25/3/2009 in an appeal and therefore the present revision. 3. During the pendency of Revision, the Applicant filed Criminal Application No.468 of 2011 pointing out that dispute between the parties is amicably settled and parties have agreed to compound the offence and therefore prayer is made to permit the parties to compound the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 invoking the provisions of section 320 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and 147 of N.I. Act, 1881. 4. In paragraph No.1 of Crim. Appl. No. 468/11 averment is made by the Applicants that the Applicants agreed to pay an amount of Rs.57,000/- to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 agreed to accept the same to compound the offence. 5. Respondent no.2 – Original Complainant has also filed an affidavit dated 30/11/2011 wherein in paragraph no.2, she has -: 3 :- revn-352/9 re-iterated that the matter has been amicably settled out of Court and towards her dues she is being paid Rs.57,000/- and therefore she has no objection if the offence is compounded. The applicants and respondent no.2 are present in the Court. Upon query, respondent no.2 has stated that she has gone through the contents of her affidavit and she has very well understood the same. She further stated that she has received an amount of Rs.57,000/- by demand draft and she has no objection if the offence is compounded. 6. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the parties have settled their dispute amicably. From the perusal of complaint it would reveal that the allegations made therein are totally personal in nature and there is no element of public law involved in the crime. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaid criminal proceeding pending except burdening the Criminal Courts, which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter, I find that in the interests of justice the -: 4 :- revn-352/9 offence is required to be compounded. 8. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of Criminal Application No.468 of 2011. Consequently, Revision Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e). 9. If any applications are taken out by either of the parties in this Revision Application, in view of the disposal of the main Revision Application, same do not survive and are therefore disposed of. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that Applicant No.2 has deposited an amount of Rs. 70,000/- in the trial Court as per the impugned order. In support of the statement, he produced receipt. Since the matter is now settled by the parties amicably and respondent no.2 has already been given Rs.57,000/- towards the full and final settlement of her claim and impugned order is quashed and set aside, the Applicant no.2 is allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.70,000/- deposited by her in the trial Court. (RANJIT MORE, J.)