DIVAKAR MADHUKAR GARUD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants, the learned A. P. P. for the State and the learned Advocate appearing for the second Respondent. The Applicants in Revision Application have been convicted for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed in Appeal. The Criminal Application No. 184 of 2006 has been filed for compounding of offence as there is an amicable settlement between the Applicants and the second Respondent who is the original complainant. Affidavit of the second Respondent (original complainant) has been filed in this Application. In paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit the second Respondent has stated thus:

(2.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the second Respondent also confirms the correctness of what is stated in the affidavit and states that the second Respondent has no objection for compounding the offence.

(3.) UNDER section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the offence under section 138 of the said Act of 1881 has been made compoundable. In the present case, the second Respondent who is the original complainant has stated that he has no objection for compounding the offence. Hence, Criminal Application No. 184 of 2006 deserves to be allowed and consequently, Revision Application will have to be disposed of.