..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.274 OF 2008 Jamil Ahmed Mohmed Waris. ..Petitioner. Versus Subhash Danmal Jain and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar, Adv. i/b. Khandeparkar & Associates for the petitioner. Mr.R.N.Sanghvi, Adv. for the respondent. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 26th November, 2008. DATED : 26th November, 2008. DATED : 26th November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner - orig.accused No.1, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 - orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The respondent filed complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint is numbered as C.C. No.440 of 2003 and it is pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Court No.8, Pune. In the said case, process came to be issued against the applicant ..(2).. under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved thereby, he preferred an application before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application holding that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adalatprasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and other Adalatprasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and other Adalatprasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and other reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 4674 A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 4674 A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 4674, he has no power to entertain the said application and hence application for discharge came to be rejected by order dated 3.11.2007. Being aggrieved thereby, this Petition has been preferred. 3. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Adalatprasad Adalatprasad Adalatprasad (supra), no fault can be found with the order of the learned Magistrate. In view of the decision in the case of Adalatprasad Adalatprasad Adalatprasad (supra) it is clear that the learned Magistrate has no power to entertain such an application. However, during the pendency. the parties have amicably settled the matter. The learned Advocate for the complainant has stated that the petitioner and the complainant have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves and as per the settlement postal order No.016978 dated 30.7.2008 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Chinchwad, Pune, postal order No.018441 ..(3).. dated 18.10.2008 for Rs.36,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Chinchwad, Pune and postal order No.018439 dated 18.10.2008 for Rs.6,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Chinchwad, Pune are handed over to the complainant in Court. The complainant has accepted the same as full and final settlement in this case. The learned Advocate for the complainant states that in view of the settlement between the parties, the complainant does not wish to prosecute any of the accused persons in this said case and the proceedings against all the accused in this case be quashed. 4. In view of the above facts, C.C. No.440 of 2003 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Court No.8, Pune and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. 5. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)