IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO. 99 OF 2010 with APPLICATION NOS. 100 TO 103 OF 2010. Girinder Singh Batheja ..... ..... ...Applicant. V/s Hashmeet Singh Kohli & Anr. Hardev Singh Kohli & Anr. ..... ...Respondents. Mr.Prakash Naik, Adv. for the applicant. Ms.M.H.Mhatare, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 3rd March, 2010. PC: This criminal application challenges the order passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing criminal revision filed by the applicants challenging the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Bombay thereby convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and directing them to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and further directing them to pay compensation of Rs.24,250/-. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that athe applicant has deposited amount of Rs.l,10,000/- in the trial Court and remaining amount of Rs. 34,250/- in this Court. 2. Respondent No.2 who is present in the Court states that the proceedings initiated by the complainant were only on account of dishonour of cheque of the amount which was not paid by the applicant. The complainant submits that the complainant is not 1 interested in conviction of the applicant in as much as the amount which is due to him is deposited in the Court and the trial court. He further sub mits that the amount deposited in the trial court is already withdrawn by him. 3. It is thus clear that the proceedings have been initiated by the complainant on account of dishonour of cheques. The proceedings were initiated basically for recovery of amount due and payable to the complainant. It is therefore clear that the dispute between the parties was purely of personal in nature. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held : “that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.” I, therefore feel that this is a fit case where this Court in its inherent power can exercise the jurisdiction to give an end to the litigation. In the result order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and of the learned Sessions Judge thereby dismissing the revision are quashed and set aside. The applicants-accused are acquitted for the offence with which they are charged. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. The amount deposited in this Court is directed to be withdrawn by the respondent-complainant. Applications stand disposed of. 2