Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Leave to amend the prayer clause by adding Paragraph 12(AA). 2. Rule. Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Shri Premal Ranchh, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2-original complainant. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present application is taken up for final hearing today. 4. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original accused-convict for the following reliefs; (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow the Miscellaneous Criminal Application and be further pleased to recall the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 25/11/2010 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 619/2009 in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties; and further be pleased to acquit the applicant-accused by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 12/07/2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 581/2002 as well as the judgment and order dated 30/06/2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2005. (AA) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant permission of compounding of the offence in view of the subsequent development of compromise arrived at between the parties after the judgment is delivered in Criminal Revision Application No. 619/2009 and thereby pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 12/07/2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 581/2002, judgment and order dated 30/06/2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2005 as well as the judgment and order dated 25/11/2010 of this Hon’ble Court passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 619/2009 and further be pleased to acquit the applicant/accused; 5. Shri Tushar Sheth, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original accused-convict has submitted that subsequent to the order passed by this Court dated 25/11/2010 in Criminal Revision Application No. 619/2009 confirming the orders passed by both the Courts below convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a settlement arrived at between the applicant and Respondent No. 2 by which the applicant has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 75,000/-, which is the cheque amount, and in fact the said amount is already paid to Respondent No. 2, and, therefore, it is requested to permit the applicant to compound the offence and consequently to quash and set aside the order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Sessions Court as well as this Court. Shri Tushar Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kirpalsingh Pratapsingh vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardisingh Lobana, reported in 2004 (2) GLH 544 . Relying upon the said decision, it is submitted that even after dismissal of Criminal Revision Application confirming the conviction by both the Courts below, compounding of the offence is permissible, more particularly, in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Shri Tushar Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has further submitted that he has brought the Demand Draft in the name of Gujarat State Legal Services Authority for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which is required to be deposited as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 while permitting the parties to compound the offence. He has submitted that the Demand Draft shall be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority during the course of the day. 6. Shri Premal Ranchh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, under instructions from Respondent No. 2, has stated at the bar that Respondent No. 2 has no objection in permitting the applicant to compound the offence and quashing and setting aside the order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and the learned Session Court confirmed by this Court. He has also stated at the bar, under instructions from Respondent No. 2, that he has already received a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the applicant being the cheque amount. 7. Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned APP has requested to pass an appropriate order considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case recorded hereinabove. 8. 75,000/- from the applicant being the cheque amount. 7. Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned APP has requested to pass an appropriate order considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case recorded hereinabove. 8. In view of the above and considering the fact that as the parties have now settled the dispute amicably and the cheque amount is already paid by the applicant to Respondent No. 2 and the applicant has also deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority to be deposited as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra) to be deposited while permitting the applicant to compound the offence and considering the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kirpalsingh Pratapsingh (Supra) and as neither the learned APP nor the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, under instructions from his client, have no objection in permitting the applicant to compound the offence for which the applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he is convicted and consequently the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court dated 12/07/2005 in Criminal Case No. 581/2002 and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court dated 30/06/2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2005 confirmed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 619/2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. With this, the present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. It is reported that the applicant has already surrendered pursuant to the earlier order of conviction, and, therefore, on the present application being allowed, the applicant shall be set at free unless required for in some other case. Direct service is permitted. P P P P P