cran3320.05 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3320 OF 2005 1 Rafique Ahmed Khan s/o Gulam Husan Khan Age 38 years, Occ. Business 2 Shafique Ahmed Khan s/o Gulam Hasan Khan age 38 years, Occ. Business, Both R/o. Silk Mill Compound, Near Vatan Textile, Paithan Road, Aurangabad ...Applicants Versus 1 Inayat Ali Khan s/o Mohd Khan Age 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Fatch Buruj, Nanded 2 Juned Ahmed Khan s/o Javed Khan Age 35 years, Occ. Business 3 Javed Khan s/o Abdul Hamid Khan Age 63 years, Occ. Business, R. Nos. 2 and 3 R/o. Silk Milk Compound Near Vatan Textiles, Paithan Road, Aurangabad 4 The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served upon Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad ...Respondents ..... Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for the applicants Mrs. A.N. Ansari, advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. S.D.Kaldate, APP for respondent No.4 ..... cran3320.05 -2- CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT :- 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2 This criminal application is directed against the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2005, which came to be dismissed on 11.11.2005 confirming the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded in S.C.C. No. 3400 of 2002, issuing process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. 3 Heard. Perused the record. It appears that on the complaint filed by respondent No.1 before the learned C.J.M. Nanded a complaint came to be registered as S.C.C. No. 3400 of 2002 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 against the present applicants and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. It further appears that after recording verification of respondent No.1, the learned C.J.M. was pleased to issue process under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It further appears that only present applicants have questioned the correctness of issuance of process by way of criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, who confirmed the order passed by the learned C.J.M. and dismissed the Revision by his judgment and order dated 11.11.2005. cran3320.05 -3- 4 Now it further appears that the parties have settled the matter out of court and today filed compromise deed before this Court. This compromise deed is singed by applicant Nos. 1 and 2, who are identified by their counsel Mr. K.C. Sant. It is also signed by respondent No.1, original complainant, who is identified by his counsel Mrs A.N. Ansari. It is stated in para 2 that the respondent No.1 original complainant has received the disputed amount of cheque for which he has lodged the complaint and now he has no grievance against the applicants so also against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement before they are put to the trial, in my view, in the interest of justice, it would not be appropriate to proceed with the complaint S.C.C. No. 3400 of 2002 pending before the learned C.J.M. Nanded. The compromise deed is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 5 In view of the above circumstances, the complaint being S.C.C. No. 3400 of 2002 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is thus made absolute. Application stands disposed of. *****