IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1342 OF 2008 Mrs.Shobha Gangadharan .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Amol P. Mhatre for the petitioner. Smt P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. Mr.Ajay S. Patil for respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 20th August 2008. P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 2. The petitioner is the complainant who filed a complaint alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. By a judgment and order dated 29th June 2005, the 2nd respondent was convicted and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default, the 2nd respondent was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The 2nd respondent was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- with 18% interest to the petitioner. 3. It is stated in the petition that subsequently a : 2 : memorandum of understanding was executed between the parties by which the petitioner agreed to compound the offence. 4. The advocates appearing for the parties state that both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are personally present in the Court. The advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner has received the entire amount agreed to be paid by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner states that in view of receipt of the agreed amount, the offence under section 138 of the said Act of 1881 be compounded as she is no longer interested in prosecuting the 2nd respondent. 5. In view of the aforesaid statements made by the advocate for petitioner on instructions of the petitioner who is stated to be personally present in the Court, the petition is disposed of by passing following order: (i) The offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands compounded. (ii) In view of the compounding of the : 3 : offence, the conviction and sentence of the 2nd respondent under the order dated 29th June 2005 stands quashed and set aside. (iii) Accordingly, conviction warrant issued against the 2nd respondent stands set aside. (iv) Petition allowed in above terms. (v) Parties and concerned authorities to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.Oka,J)