IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION NO. 643 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 425 OF 2009. Subhash Ananda Sutar ..... ..... ...Applicant. V/s Rajesh Ramchandra Poyrekar & Anr. ..... ..Respondents Mr.Sagar Joshi, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.A.J.Uniyal & P.B. Ahire, Adv. for the respondent No.1. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 8th March, 2010. PC: The present application challenges the order passed by the learned JMFC dated 8.12.2006 thereby convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for two months further directing him to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane dated 24.10.2008 dismissing the appeal. During the pendency of the present application parties have arrived at amicable settlement and the respondent has withdrawn an amount of Rs.60,000/- deposited by the petitioner earlier in this Court. In addition according to the petitioner he has deposited further sum of Rs.50,000/-. 2. Since the present petition arises out of dispute between the parties which is purely personal in nature I find that this is fit case where the court should exercise its jurisdiction to put an end to the 1 litigation amongst the parties. Reliance in that regard is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 wherein it is held : “that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.” . 3. In that view of the matter revision application is allowed. Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC and that of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal are quashed and set aside. Applicant is acquitted of the charged with which he was charged. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. The amount deposited by the petitioner is permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No.1-complainant on production of authenticated copy of order. 4. In view of disposal of revision application, criminal application No.425/09 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. 8.3.2010. 2