1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1509 OF 2009 Kavendra s/o Ramrao Patil, Age 38 years, Occupation Business, Prop. Multistar Chemicals, Plot No. M-67, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad. Applicant V E R S U S Sushil Panjabi, Age 33 years, Occupation Business, Prop. Shalimar Paper Converter, Opp. MES Ground, Sona Marble, Behind Old Dalda Depot, Press Bazar, Ulhasnagar, District Thane. Respondent Mr. Pravin S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Ashok K. Wanwari, Advocate with Mr. D.M. Galani, Advocate instructed by Mr. K.C. Sant for the respondent – sole. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 6th April, 2010 PER COURT 1. This application seeks special leave to file appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal in criminal case SCC No.3206 of 2008. 2. The facts of this case are quite peculiar, and I think, due to my pursuation, the matter is coming to an end. 3. In a business transaction, the respondent handed over a cheque to the applicant. The cheque failed. Therefore, the applicant sent a legal notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to the respondent. The respondent, in response to this notice, it is said, 2 sent a reply and enclosed a demand draft of Rs.15,000/- (the cheque amount) to the applicant. With this, he also sent a copy of his reply alongwith scanned copy of the demand draft to the Advocate of the applicant. However, when the complaint was filed, this fact was not disclosed to the Court. During the trial, this was disclosed by the respondent, and ultimately, the case failed. However, without dragging the dispute further, the respondent is today handing over a fresh demand draft of Rs.15,000/- to the applicant’s Advocate. The applicant’s Advocate fairly conceded that, in view of this, he would not proceed with the application. 4. Before I finish this order, I must also mention that there are two similar transactions between the parties and two criminal cases are pending against the respondent in the J.M.F.C. Court, Aurangabad (Criminal Cases S.C.C. Nos. 3203 of 2008 and 3207 of 2008). In order to put an end to those cases also the respondent’s Advocate is handing over two fresh demand drafts of the cheque amounts pertaining to those two cases. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant agreed to receive these two demand drafts and made a statement that in view of this his client would not proceed with those two criminal cases and would withdraw the same immediately. Therefore, the application stands disposed of as infructuous. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/criapln/1509/10 3