Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Case No. 21 of 2010 taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and seeking qushing of the criminal complaint.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of instant miscellaneous petition is that ex-facie the cognizance which was taken against the petitioner in this case is absolutely illegal and an abuse of the process of the Court. It was submitted that there is no allegation in the complaint as to how the petitioners were responsible for the day to day affairs of the company and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable and was liable to be quashed.
(3.) When the matter came up for consideration of this Court, on 1.8.2012 counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to make an attempt to settle the issue of late payment of cheque amount to the complainant. Taking advantage of this opportunity, the petitioner and the complainant have settled the dispute and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. A compromise application duly signed by the counsel for the complainant supported by an affidavit of the complainant respondent No. 2 Parmeshwar Agarwal has been filed on the record. Another application has been filed by the counsel for the complainant in the Court wherein it has been mentioned that the amounts of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,00,250/- have been paid by the petitioner H.D.FC. Standard Life Insurance Company to the complainant's wife by cheques dated 21.8.2012 and 28.8.2012 respectively, and therefore, this Court should pass necessary orders in the petition.;