... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.184 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.184 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.184 OF 2006 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.323 OF 2006 Divakar Madhukar Garud & Anr. ...Applicants (In both the Applications) Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents (In both the Applications) Shri Balkrishna Joshi for the Applicants in both the Applications. Shri Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State in both the Applications. Shri Shaikh Vasim Isamiya for the Respondent No.2 in both the Applications. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2006. : SEPTEMBER 11, 2006. : SEPTEMBER 11, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned Advocate appearing for the second Respondent. The Applicants in Revision Application have been convicted for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed in Appeal. The Criminal Application No.184 of 2006 has been filed for compounding of offence as there is an amicable settlement between the Applicants and the second ... 2 ... Respondent who is the original complainant. Affidavit of the second Respondent (original complainant) has been filed in this Application. In paragraph No.6 of the affidavit the second Respondent has stated thus: "6. Now we both i.e. Petitioner Atul Ladhe and Divakar M.Garud and Respondent i.e. Jeevanbhai Poonamchand Mehta reached at compromise and settled the matter out of court, Petitioner have given me demand draft No.001077, Dt.07/09/2005 of Janlaxmi Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Nashik Branch Mahatma Nagar, Nashik of Rs.30,000/- Thirty Thousand only and remaining amount Rs.10,000/- in cash towards my out standing dues against above said cheque No.189596 of H.D.F.C. Bank Nashik Branch. I have no complaint against Petitioner, 1. Hotel 64, Down Street, 2. Atul Ladhe, 3. Divakar M. Garud. . I have received the total amount of Rs.40,000/- and owe nothing from the petitioner I wish to compound the said matter, I wish to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner and I am doing so without any undue ... 3 ... influence or threat or coercion. I am willfully and in my full senses willing to withdraw the complaint against all the petitioner. Now I have no objection to withdraw to original complaint i.e. Summary Case No.452/2003." 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the second Respondent also confirms the correctness of what is stated in the affidavit and states that the second Respondent has no objection for compounding the offence. 3. Under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the offence under section 138 of the said Act of 1881 has been made compoundable. In the present case, the second Respondent who is the original complainant has stated that he has no objection for compounding the offence. Hence, Criminal Application No.184 of 2006 deserves to be allowed and consequently, Revision Application will have to be disposed of. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The Criminal Application No.184 of 2006 is ... 4 ... allowed. (ii) The conviction and sentence of the Applicants in Criminal Case No.452 of 2003 is quashed and set aside and the Applicants are acquitted of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (iii) Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer (b) of Criminal Revision Application No.323 of 2006. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE