..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.196 OF 2004 Mrs.Leena Dshrath Balsaraf. ..Applicant. Versus Dineshkumar Gokulchand Jain and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.J.D.Kharnar, Adv. h/f. Mr.K.S.Patil, Adv. for applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for State. Mr.Vikas Shivarkar, Adv. for orig.complainant. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-orig.accused and the learned advocate for the respondent-orig.complainant. 2. By judgment and order dated 30.6.2003 passed in S.C.C.No.1744 of 2002 the learned JMFC, A.C.Court, Pune convicted the applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant preferred appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Hence this Revision. ..(2).. 3. The learned Advocates for both sides state that during pendency of this Revision, the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The learned Advocate for the orig.complainant has stated that in view of the settlement, the offence may be compounded and the applicant be acquitted thereof. In view of the statement made by the learned Advocate for the complainant, the offence is compounded and the applicant is acquitted therein. The respondent-orig.complainant is allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant before the trial Court. 4. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)