S.JAYCHABDRAN SALAI NADARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                 902-REVN-228-2005 @.doc



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   REVISION APPLICATION NO. 228 OF 2005

S. Jaychabdran Salai Nadar                            ...Applicant

            Versus
1. State Of Maharashtra
                                                      ...Respondents
2. Sethuraman Muthalaga

                                ****
Ms. Aneeta M. Vasani for the Applicant.

S. Jaychabdran Salai Nadar Applicant present in Court.

Ms. M.R. Tidke, AGP for the Respondent /State.
Mr. P.B. Patil for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. M. Sethuraman Respondent No.2 is present in Court.
                                 ****
                            CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                             DATE : 07th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :

1.          The Applicant is the original accused and Respondent No. 2 is
complainant in proceedings arising out of section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881. Revision is filed challenging conviction.
2.          Learned counsel for the Revision Applicant and learned
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 have jointly tendered Consent Terms
dated 31.03.2026 along with affidavit of the Respondent No. 2-
Complainant. It is jointly submitted that since amount of Rs.
11,00,000/- is received, parties have amicably settled the matter.
3.          Consent Terms with supporting Affidavit and self attested
identity proof (page nos.1 to 8) are taken on record and marked as ‘X’
for identification.


Navnath Waghmare                                                           1
                                                   902-REVN-228-2005 @.doc



4.          The Applicant as well as the Respondent No.2 are present in
the Court who are identified by their respective Advocates. Respondent
No.2 - the original Complainant, on a query by the Court, stated that he
has signed the Consent Terms after understanding contents therein and
implications thereof. He has confirmed that he has received the amount
of Rs.11,00,000/- deposited by the Applicant in this Court. He has also
confirmed that all claims against the Applicant is fully satisfied and he
has no objection to quash and set aside the impugned order.
5.          Considering the Consent Terms filed by the parties and and
supporting affidavit of the Respondent No.2 - Complainant, Revision
Application is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the
Metropolitan       Magistrate,   30th   Court,   Kurla,    Mumbai            in   CC
No.465/SS/2004 and order dated 02.07.2005 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Appeal No.13 of 2005 are set aside.
Applicant’s conviction under said orders is set aside and he is acquitted
of the offence involved. Applicant’s bail bond / surety, if any, stands
discharged.
6.          Since, the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably,
penalty is not imposed.
7.          Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the above
terms. No order as to costs.




                                                 (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Navnath Waghmare                                                                  2