..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.385 OF 2008 Smt.Aruna Prakash Mungi. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra, and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Sudhir Halli, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP for the State. Smt.Lilawati Dattatraya Chinni, respondent No.2-orig.complainant present in person. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Respondent No.2-orig.complainant is present in person. 2. By judgment and order dated 8th December, 2004 the learned J.M.F.C. Court No.6, Pune in S.T.C.C. No.1924 of 2003 convicted the applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed. Hence,this Revision. 3. During pendency of the Revision, the parties have amicably settled the matter. Pursuant to the ..(2).. said settlement, two demand drafts i.e. [1] for Rs.30,000/- bearing No.333399 dated 25.9.2008 drawn on IDBI Bank, Tilak Road Pune in favour of respondent No.2, & [2] for Rs.30,000/- bearing No.333398 dated 25.9.2008 drawn on IDBI Bank, Tilak Road, Pune in favour of respondent No.2, have been handed over to the complainant today. The complainant states that in view of the fact that she has received these two demand drafts, the matter be compounded and the applicant-accused be acquitted. In view of the settlement between the parties, the offence is compounded and the applicant is acquitted therein. 4. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in above terms. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)