Full Text
Translation output
1-16 & 17 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date ofDecision: May 06, 2015
Date ofDecision: May 06, 2015
CRL.M.C.5236/2014
INDERKET NARAIN SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.P.S.Chauhan & Mr. Nasimuddin, Advocates with
Petitioner-in-person
INDERKET NARAIN SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.P.S.Chauhan & Mr. Nasimuddin, Advocates with
Petitioner-in-person
VERSUS
DEV PRAKASH GUPTA &ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Dev Prakash Gupta, Respondent-Complainant in person
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Dev Prakash Gupta, Respondent-Complainant in person
CRL.REV.P.699/2014
INDERKET NARAIN SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.P.S.Chauhan & Mr. Nasimuddin, Advocates with
Petitioner-in-person
INDERKET NARAIN SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.P.S.Chauhan & Mr. Nasimuddin, Advocates with
Petitioner-in-person
VERSUS
DEV PRAKASH GUPTA &ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Dev Prakash Gupta, Respondent-Complainant inperson
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Mr. Dev Prakash Gupta, Respondent-Complainant inperson
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Crl.M.C.No.5236/2014&Crl.Rev.P.699/2014 Tage 1
2015:DHC:11157 In the above-captioned two petitions, challenge is to the impugned order of24^'' September, 2014 vide which petitioner's conviction under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and sentence ofSI for 02 months stood maintained but by a separate order of even date, the compensation amount was enhanced from ^15,000/- to
?1.5 lac.
Since both the petitions arise from the same complaint, therefore, with the consent ofboth the sides, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common judgment.
While entertaining these petitions, operation ofthe impugned order was stayed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subject matter of these petitions stand mutually resolved through Delhi High Court
Mediation & Conciliation Centre and has placed on record copy of the mediated settlement of 13"^ April, 2015. It is also submitted that in terms of the compromise, petitioner has paid a sum of ^1,90,000/- to respondent-complainant. Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that first respondent-Dev
Prakash, present in the Court, is the complainant of complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Respondent No.l, present in the Court submits that all the terms of aforesaid Settlement has been acted upon and he has been duly compensated and so the substantive sentence be set aside.
In view of mediated settlement of the subject matter of these petitions, the substantive sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced till the
Crl.M.C.No.5236/2014 &Crl.Rev.P.699/2014 2 rising ofthe Court. The sentence offine is enhanced from ^1,50,000/- to
?1,90,000/- which respondent No.l has admittedly received as compensation.
With aforesaid modification, these petitions are accordingly disposed of
MAY 06, 2015 vn Crl.M.C.No.5236/2014 &Crl.Rev.P.699/2014
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.5236/2014&Crl.Rev.P.699/2014 Tage 1
2015:DHC:11157 In the above-captioned two petitions, challenge is to the impugned order of24^'' September, 2014 vide which petitioner's conviction under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and sentence ofSI for 02 months stood maintained but by a separate order of even date, the compensation amount was enhanced from ^15,000/- to
?1.5 lac.
Since both the petitions arise from the same complaint, therefore, with the consent ofboth the sides, these two petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common judgment.
While entertaining these petitions, operation ofthe impugned order was stayed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subject matter of these petitions stand mutually resolved through Delhi High Court
Mediation & Conciliation Centre and has placed on record copy of the mediated settlement of 13"^ April, 2015. It is also submitted that in terms of the compromise, petitioner has paid a sum of ^1,90,000/- to respondent-complainant. Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that first respondent-Dev
Prakash, present in the Court, is the complainant of complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Respondent No.l, present in the Court submits that all the terms of aforesaid Settlement has been acted upon and he has been duly compensated and so the substantive sentence be set aside.
In view of mediated settlement of the subject matter of these petitions, the substantive sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced till the
Crl.M.C.No.5236/2014 &Crl.Rev.P.699/2014 2 rising ofthe Court. The sentence offine is enhanced from ^1,50,000/- to
?1,90,000/- which respondent No.l has admittedly received as compensation.
With aforesaid modification, these petitions are accordingly disposed of
MAY 06, 2015 vn Crl.M.C.No.5236/2014 &Crl.Rev.P.699/2014
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 3