JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. By way of present application, applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2018 as well as judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 32, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 3200003/15 and further prayed to release the applicant on bail pending proceedings. 2. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent-State. 3. When the matter was called out, learned advocate for the applicant was not present to assist the Court through video conferencing. 4. Looking to the nature of the offence, learned APP for the respondent-State has requested not to quash the impugned orders passed by the Courts-below in Criminal Case No.3200003/15 dated 04.12.2018 and Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2018 dated 31.01.2020. 5. Learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the dispute is amicably settled between the parties and in this connection, respondent No. 2-Vasantbhai Jagjivandas Bosamiya has filed his affidavit at Page-58. He prayed to permit the respondent No. 2 to appear before this Court and confirmed the settlement arrived at between the parties. On his request, the respondent No. 2 was permitted to appear through video conferencing. On appearing, respondent No. 2 submits that his name is Vasantbhai Jagjivandas Bosamiya. He further submits that the dispute is settled between them and he has no objection if the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2018 as well as judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 32, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 3200003/15 would be quashed and set aside by this Court. He admits that he has filed his affidavit under his signature dated 10.02.2022 as well as common affidavit dated 14.02.2022. Learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 identifies the respondent No. 2 as well as his signature in both the affidavits filed by the respondent No. 2. He further requested that certain amount as shown in the affidavit is deposited by the present applicant before the Court-below which amount can be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent No. 2. 6. He further requested that certain amount as shown in the affidavit is deposited by the present applicant before the Court-below which amount can be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent No. 2. 6. Having heard learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 as well as respondent No. 2 himself and learned APP for the respondent - State and perused the material on record, it appears that if we consider the affidavit of the respondent No. 2 filed by him at Page-58, he has clearly stated as under: "Therefore I do not object if the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2018 and in turn, the judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 3200003 of 2015 be quashed and set aside by this Honourable Court. I say and submit that the matter has been resolved and I don't not wish to proceed further against the present petitioner and have no objection if this Revision Application of the present petitioner is allowed by the Honourable Court. I say and submit that I am filing this affidavit as I am aware about the facts and circumstances of the present case and during the pendency of this Revision Application the dispute between myself and the present petitioner came to be amicably resolved. I say and submit that dispute is settled and no monetary transactions are pending between petitioner and I. I say and submit that in view of his amicable settlement, if this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Court below and any further proceedings against the present petitioner, I have no objection. I am filing this affidavit with my free will and wish without there being any undue threats or pressure." 7. In the second affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 dated 14.02.2022, the details of the amount of compromise is mentioned as under: "The applicant accused has paid me Rs.3,20,000/- by cheque and cash. The other amount which is deposited by applicant accused in the courts below are as under, – Rs.50,000/- in the metropolitan court in view of order of sessions court in C.C. No. 3200003/2015. – Rs.70,000/- in view of order of city sessions court in C.C. No. 3200003/2015. – Rs.1,50,000/- in the metropolitan magistrate court by order of Hon'ble high court in C.C. No. 3200003/15. – Rs.70,000/- in view of order of city sessions court in C.C. No. 3200003/2015. – Rs.1,50,000/- in the metropolitan magistrate court by order of Hon'ble high court in C.C. No. 3200003/15. – Rs.2,10,000/- in the metropolitan magistrate court by order of Hon'ble High Court in C.C. No. 3200003/15." 8. The said amount is deposited before the City Sessions Court in Criminal Case No. 3200002/15 as per the order passed by this Court. As the dispute is settled between the parties and compromise deed is also produced on record, the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2018 as well as judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 32, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 3200003/15 shall be quashed and set aside. The amount deposited before the Trial Court by the present applicant shall be released in favour of the respondent No. 2 by account payee cheque after due verification by the Nazir of the Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 9. 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 object of bringing Section 138 in the statute book is to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operation and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The provision is intended to prevent dishonesty on the party of the drawer of negotiable instruments in issuing cheques without sufficient funds or with a view to inducing the payee or holder in due course to act upon it. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of banking operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realized this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 (Act 55 of 2002)". 18. It thus seeks to promote the efficacy of banking operations and ensures credibility in transacting business through cheques. In such matters, therefore, normally compounding of offences should not be denied. Presumably, Parliament also realized this aspect and inserted Section 147 by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 (Act 55 of 2002)". 18. Taking into consideration even the said provision (Section 147) and the primary object underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is no reason to refuse compromise between the parties. We therefore dispose of the appeal on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the respondent." 10. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the facts of the present case as well as considering the settlement arrived at between the parties and contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, I am of the opinion that the revision application is required to be allowed and the parties be permitted to compound the offence. 11. In the result, present revision application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2018 as well as judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 32, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 3200003/15 stand quashed and set aside qua present applicant. The applicant-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Respondent No. 2 shall be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant shown in Para-7 of this order. Nazir of the Court, after due verification of identity of the respondent No. 2, shall release the amount, as described in Para-7 of the order by account payee cheque. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.