..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2007 Shri Rahul Salgaonkar. ...Applicant. Versus 1.Shri Manpal Singh Gulati, 2.The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.C.N.Shetty, Adv. for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 18th April, 2007. DATED : 18th April, 2007. DATED : 18th April, 2007. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant - orig.accused, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1-orig.complainant, and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 2.3.2005 the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of NI Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai in Case No.982/S/1998 (renumbered as C.C. No.343/S/2002). The appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, this Revision has been preferred. ..(2).. 3. During pendency of this Revision, the respondent and the applicant have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves and they have tendered consent terms to that effect, which are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 4. The learned Advocate for the respondent - orig.complainant states that the complainant has received Rs.4 lacs in cash as full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties. 5. In view of the consent terms, this Revision is allowed and the applicant is acquitted therein. 6. Revision application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)