..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.316 OF 2008 Mr.Dinesh Kinnarkar. ..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, & 2. Mr.Avinash Patil. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Milind Sawant, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Page, Adv. for respondent No.2. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 16th October, 2008. DATED : 16th October, 2008. DATED : 16th October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner-orig.accused, the learned Advocate for respondent No.2-orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 7.11.2006 the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai in Criminal Case No.127/SS/2006. The said case was under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment and order came to be dismissed. Hence, this ..(2).. Revision. 3. The learned Advocate for respondent No.2-orig.complainant states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and hence the offence may be compounded. Consent terms to that effect has been tendered in Court, which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. 4. In view of the consent terms, the offence is compounded and the petitioner accused is acquitted therein. The complainant is permitted to withdraw sum of Rs.1,80,000/- deposited by the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai in C.C. No.127/SS/2006. 5. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)