ORAL ORDER

Learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has filed fresh affidavit which is taken on record.

1. By way of present Criminal Revision Application, applicant has challenged the order of impugned judgement and order dated 23.1.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 63414 of 2014 by learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I.Act”) as well as order dated 8.2.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2019 with Criminal Revision Application No.58 of 2019 by learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge District &

Sessions Court, Surat wherein, the learned First appellate Court has been pleased to partly allowed the said appeal and confirmed the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

2. Today, respondent No.1 - Proprietor of Joy Corporation Anil Vasantbhai Solanki was present before this Court and he was identified by learned advocate for the the respondent No.1. He has filed affidavit on 27th April, 2022. Learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has identified the signature of the respondent No.1 in the affidavit which was executed before the Notary on 27th April, 2022. Respondent No.1 has no objection if impugned judgement and orders passed by the Court below are quashed by this court in view of settlement arrived at between them.

3. In the Affidavit filed by respondent No.1- Proprietor of Joy Corporation Anil Vasantbhai Solanki , it is stated that:-

4. It is stated that the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Application pray for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by learned JMFC, Surat in Criminal Case No.63414 of 2014 dated 23.1.2019 and Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2019 dated 8.2.2021 passed by learned District &

Sessions Court, Surat.

5. It is further submitted that, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.2.2021 granted interim relief to the petitioner (original accused) which was extended also. By an order dated 22.10.2021, the petitioner (original accused) was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which he has deposited. After that, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.1.2021 directed the petitioner to deposit further amount of Rs.4,00,000/- that amount was deposited on dated 19.1.2022 in trial Court, Surat by respondent.

6. It’s humbly submitted that the case is settled between both the party and entire amount is deposited by the present applicant i.e. original accused. Therefore, I be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited before the learned subordinate court by the original accused. The original accused in total has deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- before the Registry of High Court and Rs.4,00,000/- deposited before the learned trial Court which be allowed to be withdrawn by me i.e. the original complainant or it be transferred to me i.e. the original complainant.

4 Learned advocates for the respective parties also confirm that the settlement is arrived at between the parties and stated that the dispute is amicably settled and nothing requires to be adjudicated on merits by this Court. Therefore, they have requested this Court to dispose of this Revision Application by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgement and orders challenged in the present revision application.

5. Learned APP has objected the arguments advanced by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and submitted that after considering the evidence of the complainant as well documentary evidence, a clear conviction was rightly held by both the Courts below and requested to pass necessary order.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak V/s Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 2008 SC 716 has observed as under in paras 17 and 18 of the judgment :

“17. As observed by this Court in Electronic Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. V. Indian Technologists and Engineers, (1996) 2 SCC 739, the obje