1 Cri.W.P.No.222 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.222 OF 2011 Ratan S/o.Suryabhan Shinde, Age-45 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist. Beed PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Syed Rizwan Ali Kaisar Ali, Age-35 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist,Beed 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai RESPONDENTS Mr.D.J.Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.S.S.Deogude, learned counsel for respondent no.1. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 29/03/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash and set aside the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2010 on 22/12/2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in 2 Cri.W.P.No.222 of 2011 Reg.Criminal Appeal No.7/2010. 3. It is submitted across the bar that the said criminal appeal no. 7/2010 arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Majalgaon in SCC No. 1057/2002 which was filed by the first respondent against the petitioner for an offence punishable u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act. Vide judgment and order dated 11/06/2010, learned Trial Court held the petitioner, who was accused before the learned Magistrate, guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act, and sentenced to suffer RI for 3 months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/- It was also directed to the petitioner/accused to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- u/s. 357 of The Cr.P.C. This judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in SCC No. 1057/2002 was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon by preferring Regular Criminal Appeal of 7/2010. The parties entered into compromise and such pursis was filed before the First Appellate Court on 22/12/2010. In the said compromise pursis, it is agreed between the parties that as the parties have amicably settled the matter out of Court, they do not want to proceed with the matters pending before the Appellate Court and also agreed that the conviction recorded in SCC No.1057/2007 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to be quashed and set aside. It is further agreed that during the pendancy of appeal, the petitioner herein had deposited Rs.50,000/- as per the directions of the Court, for which the petitioner is entitled. It appears that this compromise 3 Cri.W.P.No.222 of 2011 pursis filed by the parties was recorded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.7/2010, which compromise pursis was signed by the petitioner, first respondent and their respective advocates. It appears that in view of this compromise pursis filed in the criminal appeal, the appeal was disposed of as the parties were allowed to compromise the matter. But while passing the final order, the order came to be passed that the respondent is entitled for Rs.50,000/- which were deposited by the petitioner. Today, learned counsel for respondent no.1, who was appearing for the respondent in the said appeal and for the complainant in the original complaint filed u/s. 138 of The N.I.Act, fairly make a statement across the bar that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon is not in consonance with the terms agreed between the parties, but against the terms of the compromise and further fairly stated across the bar that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.50,000/- which he has deposited as per the directions of the Court. In view of this, the order impugned, passed on 22/12/2010, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, directing that the first respondent is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, writ petition succeeds. Petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- deposited by him. 4. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR. 2011/cri.w.p.222-11