Full Text
Translation output
$-41 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 718/2014
RAJBIR CHIKKARA Petitioner
Through Mr.R.K.Tarun and Mr.Anand Kumar Advocates.
CRL.REV.P. 718/2014
RAJBIR CHIKKARA Petitioner
Through Mr.R.K.Tarun and Mr.Anand Kumar Advocates.
VERSUS
GURUSEVAK MOTOR & GENERAL FINANCE PVT. LTD. &
ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Sameer Mendiratta and Ms.Kanchan Khurana, Advocates for
R-1.
Mr.Navin K. Jha, APP for the State.
ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Sameer Mendiratta and Ms.Kanchan Khurana, Advocates for
R-1.
Mr.Navin K. Jha, APP for the State.
CRL.REV.P. 720/2014
RAJBIR CHIKKARA
Through Petitioner Mr.R.K.Tamn and Mr.Anand Kumar
RAJBIR CHIKKARA
Through Petitioner Mr.R.K.Tamn and Mr.Anand Kumar
VERSUS
ANR Respondents R-1.
CRL.REV.P. 721/2014
RAJBIR CHIKICARA
Through Mr.R.K.Tarun and Mr.Anand Kumar
RAJBIR CHIKICARA
Through Mr.R.K.Tarun and Mr.Anand Kumar
VERSUS
ANR •••• Respondents
2014:DHC:7503
2014:DHC:7503
CRL.REV.P. 722/2014
RAJBIR CHIKKARA
Through
RAJBIR CHIKKARA
Through
VERSUS
R-1.
Mr.R.K.Tarun and Mr.Anand Kumar ..... Respondents
Tlirough Mr.Sameer Mendiratta and R-L Mr.Navin K, Jha, APP for the State.
Mr.R.K.Tarun and Mr.Anand Kumar ..... Respondents
Tlirough Mr.Sameer Mendiratta and R-L Mr.Navin K, Jha, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
16.12.2014 Crl.M.A.No.19532/2014 (Exemption^ in CRL.REV.P. 718/2014
Crl.M.A.No.19534/2014 (Exemption) in CRL.REV.P. 720/2014
CrI.M.A.No.19528/2014 (Exemption) in CRL.REV.P. 721/2014
CrI.M.A.No.19536/2014 (Exemption) in CRL.REV.P. 722/2014
Exemption is allowed subject tojustexceptions.
Application standsdisposed of.
Crl.M.A.No.19531/2014 in CRL.REV.P. 718/2014 Crl.M.A.No.19533/2014 in CRL.REV.P. 720/2014
Crl.M.A.No.19527/2014 in CRL.REV.P. 721/2014 Crl.M.A.No.19535/2014 in CRL.REV.P. 722/2014
The parties have settled their disputes. The complainant is present. This Court has been informed that out of a sum of
Rs. 17,25,000/- which was payable by the petitioner to the complainant, the complainant has accepted a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- in full and final settlement of all his claims. The complainant is present.
He endorses this submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since this offence is compoundable and the parties have settled their disputes the matter be compounded and the petitioner who is languishing in jail be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the State points out that in view of the
16.12.2014 Crl.M.A.No.19532/2014 (Exemption^ in CRL.REV.P. 718/2014
Crl.M.A.No.19534/2014 (Exemption) in CRL.REV.P. 720/2014
CrI.M.A.No.19528/2014 (Exemption) in CRL.REV.P. 721/2014
CrI.M.A.No.19536/2014 (Exemption) in CRL.REV.P. 722/2014
Exemption is allowed subject tojustexceptions.
Application standsdisposed of.
Crl.M.A.No.19531/2014 in CRL.REV.P. 718/2014 Crl.M.A.No.19533/2014 in CRL.REV.P. 720/2014
Crl.M.A.No.19527/2014 in CRL.REV.P. 721/2014 Crl.M.A.No.19535/2014 in CRL.REV.P. 722/2014
The parties have settled their disputes. The complainant is present. This Court has been informed that out of a sum of
Rs. 17,25,000/- which was payable by the petitioner to the complainant, the complainant has accepted a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- in full and final settlement of all his claims. The complainant is present.
He endorses this submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since this offence is compoundable and the parties have settled their disputes the matter be compounded and the petitioner who is languishing in jail be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the State points out that in view of the
ORDER
of Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC \901.Damodar S.
Prabhu Vs.Saved Babalal H. the expenses incurred by the State machinery have to be compensatedby the petitioner. It is pointed out that since the offence has been sought to be compounded by the petitioner at the appellate stage, 15% of the total principal figure will have to be paid by the petitioner as cost.
Noting these submissions and while allowing the first prayer made by the parties, noting that the parties have settledtheir disputes, the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2014 and order of sentence dated
17.11.2014 are set aside. Petitioner stands acquitted. The petitioner be released from jail (if not required in any other case) subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the principal amount {in view of the judgment of Damodar (suvra)}. This amount is worked out to
Rs.1,80,000/- in view of the fact that the figure of the cheque amount was Rs. 12,00,000/-.
The sum of Rs.4,50,000/- lying deposited with the concerned
Court (along with accrued interest) be released in favour of the petitioner.
With these directions, these petitions stand disposed of.
Order dasti under signatures oftheCourt ]Vj[|aster.
DECEMBER 16, 2014 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
Prabhu Vs.Saved Babalal H. the expenses incurred by the State machinery have to be compensatedby the petitioner. It is pointed out that since the offence has been sought to be compounded by the petitioner at the appellate stage, 15% of the total principal figure will have to be paid by the petitioner as cost.
Noting these submissions and while allowing the first prayer made by the parties, noting that the parties have settledtheir disputes, the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2014 and order of sentence dated
17.11.2014 are set aside. Petitioner stands acquitted. The petitioner be released from jail (if not required in any other case) subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the principal amount {in view of the judgment of Damodar (suvra)}. This amount is worked out to
Rs.1,80,000/- in view of the fact that the figure of the cheque amount was Rs. 12,00,000/-.
The sum of Rs.4,50,000/- lying deposited with the concerned
Court (along with accrued interest) be released in favour of the petitioner.
With these directions, these petitions stand disposed of.
Order dasti under signatures oftheCourt ]Vj[|aster.
DECEMBER 16, 2014 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J