1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.592 OF 2011 Ravi Rajesh Mundada Applicant versus M/s.Shah Uttamchand Maganchand and another Respondents Mr.H.S.Venegavkar for applicant. Mr.Jaideep Pande for respondent no.1. Mr.D.R.More, APP for Respondent no.2. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 PC : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The applicant by way of present revision challenges the order of Magistrate dated 18th November 2008 passed in Summary Criminal Case No.76 of 2006 as confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2008 below dated 17th December 2011. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 18th November 2008 convicted the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for eight days and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. As stated above, this order came to be confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. Therefore, applicant has filed present revision. 3. The parties have now settled their dispute amicably and filed consent terms. Respondent no.1 agreed to accept Rs.50,000/- towards 2 settlement of the entire claim. Accordingly, the applicant has handed over two demand drafts of Rs.25,000/- each to the learned counsel for respondent no.1. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has accepted those demands drafts. In view of receipt of demands drafts, the respondent no.1 is not desirous of prosecuting the criminal proceedings. The consent terms are signed by the applicants as well as respondent no. 1 along with their respective counsel. Both, the brother of the applicant and proprietor of respondent no.1 is present in the Court. On making query, they submit that they have gone through the consent terms and they have understood the same. Respondent no.1 specifically states that he has no objection if the offence is compounded and sentence awarded to the applicant is quashed and set aside. 4. 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. 5. 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. Therefore, the criminal revision application is disposed of by passing following order :- (a) The offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compounded under section 147 of the said Act; (b) The order awarding sentence vide order of Magistrate dated 18th November 2008 passed in Summary Criminal Case No.75 of 2006 as confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2008 dated 17th December 2011 are quashed and set aside; 3 (c) The applicants be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence. (RANJIT MORE, J.)