SSK/ 1 revn 459.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 459 OF 2011 Mahesh Ramchandra Hedulkar ....Applicant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b. Mr. Shri J. K. Hegde, advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. V. Marwadi i/b. Mr. Sushant P. Narkar, advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 19th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: At the outset, Mr. Mundargi, learned counsel for the applicant, seeks leave to delete the name of respondent no.3 who is the original accused no.1. Leave as prayed for, is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The revision arises out of the proceedings under Section 138 read with Sections 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Respondent No.2 is the complainant and the applicant is accused no.2. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, by his Order dated 7th September, 2010 convicted accused no.2 for the offence SSK/ 2 revn 459.11 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year. Besides, the accused was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Criminal Procedure Code within one month, in default he was directed to undergo R.I. for six months. This order is confirmed by the lower appellate court on 27th September, 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2010, and therefore, the present revision. The applicant during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court had deposited an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- before the trial court. 4. Today, the applicant has filed filed an Undertaking dated 19th December, 2011. The same is taken on record and marked as Exhibit “X” for identification. In Para 5 of this undertaking, the applicant has made a statement that the parties have agreed to resolve entire dispute. Respondent No.2-original complainant has agreed to accept the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as and by way of full and final settlement of the entire claim. It is further stated that the amount of Rs.5,60,000/- which is already deposited by the applicant in the trial court may be allowed to be withdrawn by respondent no.2 through his daughter – Ms.Deepavali Matkar. He has further undertaken to pay an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to her directly on or before 20th March, 2012. It is made clear that in case of failure to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, the order passed on the basis of SSK/ 3 revn 459.11 undertaking may be revived. The applicant is present before the Court. On being queried, he reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the undertaking. Respondent no.2 is 86 years old, and at present, he is hospitalized. His daughter-Ms.Deepavali Matkar is present before the Court. Mr. Marwadi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as daughter of respondent no.2-Ms.Deepavali Matkar, stated that respondent no.2 is hospitalized for serious ailment and money is required for his treatment. They further stated that respondent no.2 has no objection if the matter is settled, and he is ready and willing to accept the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim. Mr. Deepavali Matkar, daughter of respondent no.2, who is present before the Court, stated that she has power of attorney on behalf of her father and she will provide a copy of the same on the record of the said proceedings within a period of two weeks from today. The statement is accepted. She further stated that she may be allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,60,000/- which is deposited in the name of respondent no.2 by the applicant in the trial court. 5. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the complaint, it would reveal that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. SSK/ 4 revn 459.11 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In the above circumstances and in view of the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, permission is granted to compound the offence, as offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable. 7. Taking overall facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view, that the revision can be disposed of by passing the following order : 1. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 2. Respondent No.2 through his daughter is at liberty to withdraw, the amount of Rs.5,60,000/- along with interest which is deposited by the applicant in the trial court. 3. The applicant’s undertaking that he will pay to respondent no.2, the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- on or before 20th March, 2012 is accepted. (RANJIT MORE, J.)