1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.247 OF 2011 M/s.Document Scout Services (I) Pvt.Ltd. and another Applicants versus Anushree Holdings Pvt.Ltd. and another Respondents Mr.Pradeep P. Indalkar for applicants. Mr.R.S.Tanna for respondent no.1. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. Present revision application arises out of conviction of applicants under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Respondent no.1 is the complainant and the applicants are accused. Learned 9th JMFC, Thane vide his order in Summary Criminal Case No.127 of 2002, dated 26th June 2006 convicted applicant no.2 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for four months and further directed to pay compensation to the respondent/accused of Rs.11,12,374/-. This order is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2006 by learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane vide order dated 10th May 2011. 3. Pursuant to the order passed in present Revision Application dated 22nd June 2011 (Coram : B.R.Gavai, J.), the applicants have deposited the outstanding amount in two installments of Rs.5,57,000/- and Rs. 5,55,500/- respectively. 2 4. Now, the parties have settled all their disputes. Respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit dated 21st December 2011. She has stated that she is ready and willing to settle the present dispute. She has also shown her willingness to withdraw and/or support the quashing of Case No. 3671/PW/2005 which is filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri arising out of CR No.9 of 2002. 5. Applicant no.2 who is director of applicant no.1 and Smt.Kashmira Dilip Kand, director of respondent no.1 are present in Court. On specific query they state that they have agreed to settle the criminal proceedings and compound the offence. Respondent no.1 has reiterated the contents of affidavit dated 21st December 2011. 6. 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. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. 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. 7. In view of the facts of the case, I pass following order : (a) The offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is allowed to be compounded under section 147 of the said Act; (b) The impugned order of learned 9th JMFC, Thane in Summary Criminal Case No.127 of 2002, dated 26th June 2006 and the order in Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2006 passed by learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane vide order dated 10th May 2011 are quashed and set aside; 3 (c) Respondent no.1 is allowed to withdraw the amount already deposited in this Court on 28.6.2011 and 12.7.2011 towards full and final settlement of the outstanding amount along with interest accrued thereon. (RANJIT MORE, J.)