..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.541 OF 2008 Prakash Ramchandra Potdar. ..Petitioner. Versus Mr.Laxmikant Prabhakar Nikam and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Amol P.Mhatre, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar S. Ahire, Adv. for Respondent No.1. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for Respondent No.2-State. .... ALONG WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.542 OF 2008 Prakash Ramchandra Potdar. ..Petitioner. Versus Mr.Laxmikant Prabhakar Nikam and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Amol P.Mhatre, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar S. Ahire, Adv. for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for Respondent No.2-State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner-orig.accused, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1-orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. The complainant is present in the ..(2).. Court. 2. By judgment and order dated 12th February,2007 the petitioner has been convicted by the learned J.M.F.C., Court No.5, Nashik in SCC No.10510 of 2005. He was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved thereby, Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2007 was preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Court and Criminal Revision Application No.209 of 2007 was preferred by the respondent - complainant for enhancement of the sentence. The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed, however, revision application filed by the respondent - complainant came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal the petitioner - orig.accused has preferred Criminal Revision Application No.541 of 2008 against conviction and Criminal Revision Application No.542 of 2008 has been preferred against the order of enhancement of sentence. Hence, both these revisions are being heard together. 3. The learned Advocate for the respondent - orig.complainant states that during pendency of these revisions, the matter has been amicably settled. In ..(3).. view of the settlement, it is agreed that the complainant be allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.60,000/- which has been deposited by the petitioner before the Sessions Court. The learned Advocate for the complainant states that in view of the settlement permission may be granted to compound the matter and the accused be acquitted therein. 4. In view of the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, permission is granted to compound the matter and the accused is acquitted therein. The complainant is allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.60,000/- which has been deposited in the Sessions Court by the petitioner. The petitioner to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 5. Criminal Revision Applications are disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)