Full Text
CRL.REV.P. 457/2012
MAHESH PRASAD SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Ankit Dixit, Adv.
Respondents
Through Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the State.
Mr. A.K. Jain, Adv. for R-2.
05.04.2013 By way of this petition filed under 397/ 401 Cr.P.C, the petitioners sought revision of the order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Id. ASJ.
Apprising this Hon'ble Court, Counsel for the parties state that with the intervention Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre, the parties have settled all their inter se disputes.
Petitioner who is present in the court is identified by his counsel. Respondent no.2 is present in the court along with his
2013:DHC:8470 counsel as well.
Counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the settlement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.85,000/- to respondent No.2. Counsel further states, that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of ^ 50,000/- with the
^ 22.11.2012 and in addition, has also paid a sum of? 35,000/-in cash to respondent No. 2. In terms of the settlement the parties have agreed that respondent No.2 may get the amount of ?
50,000/- released in his favour, which was deposited by the petitioner with this Court. Counsel further states that parties have also agreed that the petitioner may get the documents released which were submitted in the Court of learned
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in
Criminal Appeal No. 106/2011. Counsel thus submits that now
^ nothing survives in the petition, therefore, the offence shall be compounded.
Heard.
Present petition was preferred against the impugned order and
ORDER
1,15,000/- and in default to further undergo SI for 3 months under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 .
However, for the purpose of arranging funds as requested by the petitioner, he was released and the order on sentence was suspended till the next date vide order dated 01.11.2012 and this court had directed the petitioner to deposit 50000/- to the was fixed for 18.12.2012. Vide order dated 18.12.2012 as the aforesaid amount already stood deposited, the interim bail granted to the petitioner was made absolute and the respondent no.2 showed his proclivity to settle the matter and, therefore, the same was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre and with the intervention of the Delhi High
Court Mediation and Concihation Centre, the present petition has been settled in the aforesaid terms.
In the present case, the matter has been compromised.
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deals with the offences compoundable under the act, the same is reproduced as under:
)<?
147. Offence to be compoundable- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), very offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. In the case of O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana and Another, (2000) 1 see 762, the Apex Court was pleased to allow the accused and the complainant to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Act despite conviction and sentence having been held by three Forums. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act was annulled. In view of the above factual matrix and the case set up by the petitioner, taking into consideration the nature of the offence in question and the fact that the complainant and the accused have already entered into a compromise, I think it would be appropriate to allow in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, to compound the offence.Accordingly, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall stand compounded and I hereby set aside the appellant's conviction vide judgment dated 10.10.2011 and order on sentence dated 13.10.2011. Respondent No. 2 will now be entitled to seek release of' 50,000/-, which is lying deposited with this Court vide demand draft bearing No. 063497 dated 22.11.2012. n The petition stands disposed of. It is ordered accordingly.
APRIL 05,2013 rkr KAIOiSH GAMBHIR, J