1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.546 OF 2010 Rajesh R. Kori Applicant versus M/s.Bombay Chits and Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd. & anr. Respondents Mr.Chetan Akerkar i/by D.S.Manerkar for applicant. Mr.E.A.Shashi for respondent no.1. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 PC : 1. Heard respective advocates for the parties. By the present revision application, the applicant challenges the legality and propriety of the order dated 10th December 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2009 arising out an order dated 2nd July 2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai in CC No.442/SS/2007. By the said order, the applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The applicant was also directed to pay fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of payment, he was sentenced to suffer two months simple imprisonment. Out of the fine amount of Rs.40,000/-, Rs. 36,000/- was to be paid to respondent no.1 and Rs.4,000/- was to be paid to the Government. The applicant has already deposited Rs.30,000/- in the Court of 33rd Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. 2. The parties have now settled their disputes amicably and filed consent terms dated 21st December 2011. The respondent no.1 has 2 agreed to settle the entire dispute between them and applicant by accepting Rs.36,000/- in full and final settlement. Accordingly, Demand Draft No.177490 dated 16th December 2011 of sum of Rs.10,000/- is given by the applicant to the Assistant General Manager of respondent no. 1 who is present in the Court. He has accepted the said demand draft. So far as balance Rs.26,000/- is concerned, the parties have agreed that respondent no.1 shall apply to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai to hand over the said balance of Rs.26,000/- out of Rs.30,000/- already deposited by the applicant. 3. The consent terms are signed by applicant and the Assistant General Manager of respondent no.1 and their respective advocates. On specific query they state that they have read the consent terms and understood the same. They, therefore, pray that the offence be compounded under the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008)4- SCC-582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. I, therefore, pass following order :- (a) The offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is allowed to be compound under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (b) The impugned orders passed by learned 33rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai in CC No.442/2007 dated 2nd July 2009 and by learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Criminal 3 Appeal No.463 of 2009 dated 10th December 2010 are quashed and set aside;; (c) The respondent no.1 is at liberty to withdraw Rs.26,000/- out of Rs. 30,000/- already deposited by the applicant in the Court of learned 33rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai by making appropriate application. (RANJIT MORE, J.)