Full Text
Translation output
p $-45 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.REV.P. 467/13 & Crl.M.A.12453/13 & Crl.M.(B)1679/13
SANJAY KUMAR DUGGAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Pal, Advocate with petitioner in person
SANJAY KUMAR DUGGAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Pal, Advocate with petitioner in person
VERSUS
STATE AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. R.K. Sahni, Advocate for respondent No.2
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. R.K. Sahni, Advocate for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
23.08.2013 Impugned
23.08.2013 Impugned
ORDER
of 5^"^ August, 2013 upholds petitioner's conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is rightly not challenged on merits in this petition. The prayer made by petitioner's counsel is to set aside the sentence awarded in view of Settlement Deed of 12'*' August, 2013.
Notice.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the State is a proforma
CRL.REVP. 467/13 Page 1 2013:DHC:8497 v- party.
Mr. R.K. Sahni, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and submits that respondent No.2 present in the Court is complainant of the complaint in question. Respondent No.2, present in person, affirms contents of the Settlement Deed of 12^^^ August, 2013 and that he has already received the settlement amount of ?1,80,000/- in cash and a post dated cheque of ?50,000/-, which is to be encashed in December, 2013.
Respondent No.2 further submits that in light of the Settlement Deed of
12^ August, 2013, the substantive sentence and the compensation awarded be set aside.
Petitioner, present in the Court, undertakes that the post-dated cheque of December, 2013 would be honoured. Petitioner's counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to decisions of the Apex Court in Vinay
Devanna Nayak v. RyotSewa Sahakari BankLtd. (2008) 2 SCC 305 and
K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed & Anr. 2010 Crl.L.J. 525 to submit that by virtue of Section 147 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the offence in question can be compounded at any stage andthe Apex Court has allowed compounding even after theconviction has been affirmed by the High Court.
In the light of aforesaid legal position, the parties are permitted to compound the offence inquestion interms ofthe Settlement Deed of 12^^
August, 2013 and in view thereof, the impugned judgment as well as
Appellate Court's judgment are set aside. Needless to say that petitioner shall abide by the terms ofSettlement Deed of12^^ August, 2013 in letter and spirit andif thepost-dated cheque ofpetitioner is dishonoured forany reason whatsoever, then, petitioner shall be liable to receive appropriate
CRL.REVP. 467/13 Page2 sentence.
This petition andthe appHcations areaccordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
AUGUST 23,2013 s
— 1
^UNIL GAUR)
Judge CRL.REV.P. 467/13 Page 3
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is rightly not challenged on merits in this petition. The prayer made by petitioner's counsel is to set aside the sentence awarded in view of Settlement Deed of 12'*' August, 2013.
Notice.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the State is a proforma
CRL.REVP. 467/13 Page 1 2013:DHC:8497 v- party.
Mr. R.K. Sahni, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and submits that respondent No.2 present in the Court is complainant of the complaint in question. Respondent No.2, present in person, affirms contents of the Settlement Deed of 12^^^ August, 2013 and that he has already received the settlement amount of ?1,80,000/- in cash and a post dated cheque of ?50,000/-, which is to be encashed in December, 2013.
Respondent No.2 further submits that in light of the Settlement Deed of
12^ August, 2013, the substantive sentence and the compensation awarded be set aside.
Petitioner, present in the Court, undertakes that the post-dated cheque of December, 2013 would be honoured. Petitioner's counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to decisions of the Apex Court in Vinay
Devanna Nayak v. RyotSewa Sahakari BankLtd. (2008) 2 SCC 305 and
K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed & Anr. 2010 Crl.L.J. 525 to submit that by virtue of Section 147 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the offence in question can be compounded at any stage andthe Apex Court has allowed compounding even after theconviction has been affirmed by the High Court.
In the light of aforesaid legal position, the parties are permitted to compound the offence inquestion interms ofthe Settlement Deed of 12^^
August, 2013 and in view thereof, the impugned judgment as well as
Appellate Court's judgment are set aside. Needless to say that petitioner shall abide by the terms ofSettlement Deed of12^^ August, 2013 in letter and spirit andif thepost-dated cheque ofpetitioner is dishonoured forany reason whatsoever, then, petitioner shall be liable to receive appropriate
CRL.REVP. 467/13 Page2 sentence.
This petition andthe appHcations areaccordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
AUGUST 23,2013 s
— 1
^UNIL GAUR)
Judge CRL.REV.P. 467/13 Page 3