..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.613 OF 2008 Manoharlal Dwarkadas Rohra. ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Ms.Kranti Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Lalit V. Jain, Adv. for respondent No.2. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 14th October, 2008. DATED : 14th October, 2008. DATED : 14th October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner-orig.accused, the learned Advocate for the respondent-orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 27.4.2006 the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said case was numbered as 258/SS/2005. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment and order came to be dismissed. Hence, this Petition. ..(2).. 3. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.2-orig.complainant states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and hence the offence may be compounded. In view of the statement made by the learned Advocate for the complainant, the offence is compounded and the petitioner accused is acquitted therein. 4. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)