JUDGMENT : M. R. Shah, J. Leave to amend the cause title. 2. Rule. Mr. Murali Devnani, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 - original complainant and Mr. M.R. Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 - State. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and as it is reported that parties have settled the dispute and entire amount under the cheque in question, for which judgment and order of conviction has been passed, has been fully paid up and as the petitioner is ready and willing to pay/deposit 15% amount of the total amount under cheque in question towards cost to be deposited with the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee, present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing today. 4. Present Criminal Revision Application, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused challenging the judgment and order dated 29/09/2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge and FTC No.2, Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2010 as well as the judgment and order dated 05/02/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dakor in Criminal Case No.1154 of 2003, by which, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "N.I. Act") and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one years and is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards fine and is further directed to pay total a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards compensation. 5. 3,000/- towards fine and is further directed to pay total a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards compensation. 5. Today when the present Criminal Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties more particularly learned advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant respondent No.1 as well as original accused - petitioner herein have jointly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and as the entire amount was to be paid and the said amount was to be received by the society, the matter is settled between the parties and learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 - original complainant has stated at the bar that he has no objection if the offence is permitted to be compounded and the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below are quashed and set aside on any condition that may be imposed by this Court. 6. learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010)5 SCC 663 and have requested to permit the respective parties to compound the offence and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below. 7. Mr. Dholakia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - original accused has stated at the bar that the entire amount of Rs. 4,48,000/- due and payable under the cheque in question, for which, offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was registered, and for which the petitioner has been convicted, has been paid. The aforesaid statement is confirmed by Mr. Murali Devnani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - original complainant. He has produced on record xerox copy of the Certificate issued by respondent No.1 Society - original complainant dated 20/11/2010 certifying that the entire amount due and payable under the cheque in question has been paid. The same is directed to be taken on record. 8. Mr. Dholakia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated at the bar that he has brought Demand Draft of Rs. The same is directed to be taken on record. 8. Mr. Dholakia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated at the bar that he has brought Demand Draft of Rs. 67,200/- in favour of Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee, being 15% of the total amount due and payable under the cheque in question, towards costs, which is to be paid, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu. (Supra). 9. Mr. Dholakia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid Demand Draft shall be deposited with the Authority during the course of the day. 10. Mr. M.R. Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the subsequent development and settlement between the original complainant - respondent no.1 and original accused - petitioner and considering the fact that the entire amount due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 under the cheque in question, has been paid by the petitioner - original accused and as the petitioner is also paying/depositing a sum of Rs. 67,200/-, being 15% of the total amount due and payable under the cheque in question, towards costs, to be deposited as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the petitioner - original accused and respondent no.1 - original complainant, are hereby permitted to compound the offence committed by the petitioner - original accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and consequently, on deposit of Rs. 67,200/- being 15% of the total amount due and payable under the cheque in question, both the impugned judgment and orders, more particularly judgment and order dated 29/09/2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge and FTC No.2, Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2010 as well as the judgment and order dated 05/02/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dakor in Criminal Case No.1154 of 2003 are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, if the petitioner herein original accused is in jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Order Accordingly.