..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.372 OF 2008 Shri Ravindra Bipinchandra Shah. ..Petitioner. Versus Shri Sahebrao Nabuji Shinde and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Kishore Patil, Adv. i/b. Mr.P.N.Joshi, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Dilip Bodake, Adv. for respondent No.1. 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 : 16th October, 2008. DATED : 16th October, 2008. DATED : 16th October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner-orig.accused, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1-orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 17th July, 2006 the petitioner has been convicted by the learned J.M.F.C., Chandwad in SCC No.426 of 2003. He was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment and order came to be dismissed. Hence, this Revision. ..(2).. 3. During pendency of the revision, the parties have amicably settled the dispute and they have settled the matter and they have tendered compromise deed which is taken on record. The petitioner and the complainant have also tendered affidavits, wherein it is stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The said affidavits are also taken on record. 4. In view of the settlement, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him before the Sessions Court and Rs.20,000/- deposited by him before this Court. So also the petitioner is also allowed to withdraw the amount of fine of Rs.4000/- which has been deposited by him before the trial Court. In view of the compromise, the matter is compounded and the petitioner-accused is acquitted therein. 5. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)