1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 232 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 234 OF 2010 M/s. Kakade Associates & Anr. ..Applicants versus Smt. Salma Taherbhai Gandhi & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Neel Mohan Pungliya with Ms. Bhakti Deshpande for Applicants. Mr. P. M. Sharma for Respondent No. 1. Mr. K. V. Saste - APP for Respondent No. 2 - State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 23, 2010. P.C. : 1. By consent taken up for final hearing. 2. All these criminal revisions applications are between the same parties. The proceedings arise out of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of four cheques. Four 2 proceedings being Criminal Case No. 3708 of 2001, 3061 of 2001, 3162 of 2001 and 3838 of 2001 were initiated by the respondent - complainant against the present applicants. In these proceedings the applicants came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and separate orders of sentence also came to be passed. Being aggrieved thereby the applicants preferred appeals being appeal nos. 421 of 2007, 424 of 2007, 423 of 2007 and 422 of 2007. The respondent no. 1 – complainant filed revisions being revision nos. 884 of 2007, 886 of 2007, 883 of 2007 and 885 of 2007 for enhancement of sentence awarded by the trial court . Vide order impugned dated 5th January 2010 the criminal appeals and revisions also came to be dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved thereby the applicants preferred the present criminal revision applications. 4. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Agreement for Settlement of Dispute dated 15th April, 2010 has been filed before this Court. The same is duly signed by the parties. The said Agreement for Settlement of Dispute is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 5. The applicant no. 2 and the respondent no. 1 – complainant are 3 present in the court and they are reiterating the factum regarding settlement of disputes. 6. The present proceedings are arising out of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and since the parties have amicably settled their disputes, I do not find that any purpose will be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. In that view of the matter, the revision applications are allowed. Orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and appellate court are quashed and set aside. The applicants are acquitted of the offences charged with. Bail bonds furnished by the applicant no. 2 shall stands discharged. 7. Certified copy expedited. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)