Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C. 2109/2012 & Crl.M.A.7304/2012 SANJAY BISHNOI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Purushottam Mishra, Advocate
(i) CRL.M.C. 2109/2012 & Crl.M.A.7304/2012 SANJAY BISHNOI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Purushottam Mishra, Advocate
VERSUS
AMIT BHANDARI Respondent
Through: Nemo (ii) CRL.M.C. 2119/2012 & CrLM.A. 7321/2013
SANJAY BISHONI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Purushottam Mishra, Advocate
Through: Nemo (ii) CRL.M.C. 2119/2012 & CrLM.A. 7321/2013
SANJAY BISHONI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Purushottam Mishra, Advocate
VERSUS
AMIT BHANDARI Respondent
Through: Nemo
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
18.11.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of criminal complaint No.239/2010 and 248/2010 both under Sections 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 was initially sought on merits.
However, during the pendency of these two petitions, other matters between the parties have been settled and only these two matters remain to be settled. Since ll"^ December, 2012, these matters have been adjourned time and again on the request of parties on the ground that the settlement of the subject matter of these two complaints is being drawn
CRL.MC.2109 & 2119 of2012 Page 1 \ 2013:DHC:7774 up.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the settlement of the subject matter of these two complaints under question is likely to be arrived at within a period of two months and the matter is now listed before the trial court in the month ofFebruary, 2014, In view ofthe stand taken as aforesaid, both these petitions and the applications are disposed of with liberty to petitioners for filing an application before the trial court for compounding of the offence in question.
NOVEMBER 18,2013 s (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CRL.M.C.2109 &2119of2012 Page2 2013:DHC:7774
18.11.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of criminal complaint No.239/2010 and 248/2010 both under Sections 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 was initially sought on merits.
However, during the pendency of these two petitions, other matters between the parties have been settled and only these two matters remain to be settled. Since ll"^ December, 2012, these matters have been adjourned time and again on the request of parties on the ground that the settlement of the subject matter of these two complaints is being drawn
CRL.MC.2109 & 2119 of2012 Page 1 \ 2013:DHC:7774 up.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the settlement of the subject matter of these two complaints under question is likely to be arrived at within a period of two months and the matter is now listed before the trial court in the month ofFebruary, 2014, In view ofthe stand taken as aforesaid, both these petitions and the applications are disposed of with liberty to petitioners for filing an application before the trial court for compounding of the offence in question.
NOVEMBER 18,2013 s (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
CRL.M.C.2109 &2119of2012 Page2 2013:DHC:7774
JUDGMENT