: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1782 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1782 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1782 OF 2008 Atreya Promoters & Builders . and Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S. Singh i/b. Law Global for the Petitioners. Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP, for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Ashok Tajane for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2009. DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2009. DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. In the morning session when adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioners, the prayer for adjournment was opposed by the learned Counsel for the second respondent. By way of indulgence, matter was kept back till afternoon. Again a request for adjournment is made by the Advocate for the petitioners. The request is rejected. 2. The petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. An Appeal against the order of conviction was dismissed on 30th March, 2007. A : 2 : Revision Application was filed by the petitioners for challenging the order of conviction. The said Criminal Revision Application by a detailed Judgment has been dismissed on 23rd June, 2008. The second petitioner was directed to surrender within a period of four weeks. 3. The present Petition is filed for challenging the same orders of the trial court and appellate court which have been confirmed by a detailed Judgment delivered by this Court in the Criminal Revision Application. A statement is made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Petition that the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the orders passed by the trial court in view of mutual settlement. On the basis of the said averments, this Court had issued notice and granted ad-interim relief. The said ad-interim relief has been already vacated by a detailed order dated 6th March, 2009 passed by this court. There is an affidavit filed by the second respondent in this Court categorically stating that the second respondent has not agreed to settle the matter as alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Petition. In the rejoinder, it is alleged that the settlement is arrived at in a meeting held in November, 2008. The present Petition is filed in August, 2008. The affidavits of the : 3 : persons present in the meeting have not been filed. 4. As stated earlier, the order of conviction has been already confirmed by this Court by a detailed Judgment. The second respondent is not willing to compound the offence. Hence, there is no merit in the Petition and the same is rejected. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]