JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for quashing of the sentence passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., against the present petitioner, in Criminal Complaint No.49-III/14, dated 17.04.2015, titled Vishal Goswami Versus Rakesh Katoch. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- The private respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein, which complaint was allowed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., vide judgment dated 17.04.2015, convicting the petitioner herein for commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,70,000/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Appellate Court. It appears that during the pendency of said appeal, some settlement took place between the complainant and the accused. This was followed by recording the statement of learned counsel for the present petitioner, i.e. the appellant therein before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala (Circuit Court at Baijnath), in the following terms:- “Stated that the appellant has paid the full and final compensation amount to the respondent. Now I want to withdraw the said appeal”. 4. Pursuant thereto, the appeal stood dismissed as withdrawn by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Camp at Baijnath, vide order dated 15.01.2019, which order is being quoted herein below:- “Vide his separate statement ld. Counsel for appellant stated that he does not want to pursue with present appeal as appellant has received entire amount. File complete in all respects be consigned to record room.” 5. Counsel for appellant stated that he does not want to pursue with present appeal as appellant has received entire amount. File complete in all respects be consigned to record room.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a bonafide mistake which stands committed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was representing him before the learned Appellate Court, the impugned order stands passed by the learned Appellate Court as the intent of the learned counsel was not to have had withdrawn the appeal itself, but to have had made a prayer for setting aside of the conviction in view of the matter being amicably settled in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has also placed on record an affidavit of respondent No.2/complainant who has mentioned in said affidavit that he has received full and final payment of the cheque in issue and he has no objection in case the proceedings initiated at his behest are ordered to be quashed and set aside. 6. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that the matter stands amicably settled between the parties, it will be in the interest of justice in case this petition is disposed of by permitting the complainant to withdraw the complaint which stood filed under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the petitioner is willing to do so. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, on instructions, informs the Court that the matter indeed stands amicably settled between the parties and the complainant has no objection in case this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, permits the complainant to withdraw the complaint which was so filed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that besides a mistake being committed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Baijnath), the impugned order demonstrates that the same has been passed by the said Court without any due application of mind. Learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that the appellant before it was suffering a conviction and withdrawal of the appeal in lieu of settlement of the issue was of no assistance to the appellant In these circumstances, the learned Court ought to have had sensitized the appellant before it through his counsel as to what would be the effect of withdrawal of the appeal. Not only this, it appears that when the impugned order was passed by the learned Appellate Court, it mistook the appellant to be the complainant as the order passed is to the effect that learned counsel for the appellant stated that he did not intend to pursue the appeal as the appellant had received the entire amount. Learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that in his statement which learned counsel for the appellant had got recorded before the said Court, what said stated by the learned counsel was that the appellant had “paid the full and final consideration amount of the respondent”. 9. In this background, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein this Court has to invoke its inherent jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to ensure that injustice is not meted out to the petitioner. 10. Herein is a typical case where after suffering a judgment of conviction, the appellant settled the matter with the complainant, yet he still suffers the conviction on account of the impugned order which resulted from an unjustified request made by his counsel before the learned Appellate Court. 11. Therefore, this petition is allowed and as jointly prayed for, the same is disposed of in the following terms:- Respondent No.2 is permitted to withdraw the complainant, which he filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, i.e. Criminal Complaint No.49-III/14, titled Vishal Goswami Versus Rakesh Katoch, decided on 17.04.2015. As a result of the complaint being permitted to be withdrawn by this Court, the judgment of conviction passed upon the same and the sentence imposed upon by the learned Trial Court on the basis of said complaint, is ordered to be set aside so also the order passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Baijnath), in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2016, titled as Rakesh Katoch Versus Vishal Goswami, on 15.01.2019. 12. 12. At this stage, a joint prayer has been made by the parties that an amount of Rs.42,000/- which is lying deposited with the learned Appellate Court concerned, be released in favour of respondent/complainant. It is ordered that the said amount be released in his favour. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.