[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.54 OF 2007 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO.330 OF 2006 Minoo Rustom Hiramanek ..Applicant Vs. Vinayak Keshav Manjrekar and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Shabbir Rasiwala advocate for applicant Mr.P.B.Patil for Respondent No.1 Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 9, 2007 DATE : APRIL 9, 2007 DATE : APRIL 9, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant, learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The Respondent No.1 has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is stated by the learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant that applicant and the respondent no.1-original accused have agreed to settle the matter among themselves on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- by the Respondent no.1 to the [-2-] applicant. The Respondent no.1 has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in this Court in C.R.A.No.330 of 2006. This application is preferred by the applicant-original complainant to withdraw the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which has been deposited in this Court. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent no.1-original accused has stated that there is no objection to the applicant-original complainant being paid the said amount. The advocate for the Respondent no.1-original accused has submitted written reply of Respondent No.1 wherein it is stated that Respondent No.1 has no objection if the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited in this Court is paid to the applicant-original complainant. The said reply is taken on record. In view of the above, this application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 4. Application is disposed of. 5. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [-3-] [Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.]