901.cri.revn.no.229.2005@.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 229 OF 2005 S. Jaychandran Salai Nadar … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents *** Ms. Aneeta M. Vasani for Applicant. Mr. Vishal N. Nevshe for Respondent Nos.2A, 2B and 2C. Ms. Manisha R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. S. Jaychandran Salai Nadar, Applicant – in person, present. Ms. Reminroja Algar Servai, Respondent No.2a, present in person. Mr. Rahul Algar Servai, Respondent No.2b, present in person. Ms. Priya Algar Servai, Respondent No.2c, present in person. *** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 24 SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Learned counsel for the Revision Applicant and learned Counsel for the proposed legal heirs of Respondent No.2 have jointly tendered Consent Terms dated 24.09.2026 along with affidavits of the proposed Respondent Nos. 2a, 2b and 2c who are wife, son and daughter of the deceased Respondent No.2 – Complainant. It is jointly submitted that since amount is received, parties have amivably settled the matter. 2. The Applicant is the original accused in proceedings arising out of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 3. Consent Terms with supporting Affidavits and self attested Vina Khadpe 1 VINA ARVIND KHADPE Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2026.09.24 19:29:15 +0530 901.cri.revn.no.229.2005@.doc identity proofs (page nos.1 to 17) are taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. 4. The Applicant as well as the proposed Respondent Nos.2a, 2b and 2c are present in the Court who are identified by their respective Advocates. Respondent Nos.2a, 2b and 2c i.e. wife, son and daughter of the original complainant, on a query by the Court, stated that they have signed the Consent Terms after understanding contents therein and implications thereof. They have confirmed that the original complainant Respondent No.2 had received the amount of Rs.11,50,000/- paid by the Applicant. They have also confirmed that all claims against the Applicant is fully satisfied and they have no objection to quash and set aside the impugned order. 5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, by mistake, Interim Application No.894 of 2006 for bringing the proposed legal heirs in this Revision, is filed in another connected Criminal Revision Application No.228 of 2005. Be that as it may. 6. Considering the Consent Terms and supporting affidavits filed by the parties including the proposed legal heirs of Respondent No.2 – Complainant, Revision Applicant is permitted to amend the cause title of the Revision Application and bring on record the proposed Respondent No.2a, 2b and 2c as shown in the Consent Terms. Amendment to be carried out within a period of one week from today. 7. Considering the aforesaid, Revision Application is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Metropolitan Vina Khadpe 2 901.cri.revn.no.229.2005@.doc Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, in CC No.464/SS/2004 and order dated 02.07.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Appeal No.12 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. 8. Since, the original complainant has expired and the amount is already paid and the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably, penalty is not imposed. 9. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Vina Khadpe 3