Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C.3618/2011
PUNEET SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.K.Jha, Adv.
CRL.M.C.3618/2011
PUNEET SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.K.Jha, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI & ANR.
Through:
Through:
CORAM: ..... Respondent Ms.Fizani Husain, APP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
09.05.2012 This is a petition assailing the order dated 31.8.2010, whereby the petitioner was declared P.O. in complaint under Section 138, N.I.Act. This order is assailed on the ground that the compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent/complainant Shyoraj Singh and in pursuance thereto, a sum of Rs. I lakh was given by the petitioner/accused to the complainant.
An appncation dated 4.2.2005 was seen to have been filed by the complainant before the M.M. The same was subsequently withdrawn and it is thereafter that the case proceeded for about five years when the impugned order came to be passed. The complainant has denied the compromise before the M.M. and also has not been produced here. The fact that the proceedings continued before the Magistrate even after the alleged compromise coupled with the fact that the same was denied by the complainant by way of filing an application of withdrawal would lead to the only conclusion that the compromise was neither effected nor acted upon. Thus, it could not be said that a valid compromise was
2012:DHC:8022 arrived at between the parties. The payment of Rs. 1 lakh by the petitioner to the complainant, if any, could not be taken as payment towards the compromise in the absence of there being anything on record to substantiate the same or the complainant to acknowledge same. Thus, it would not be just to accept the fact that the case was compromised. I have also gone through the impugned order of
M.M. dated 31.8.2010 and do not fmd any infIrmity or illegality therein.
The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
---- ~. MAY 09, 2012 ~-d-w' M.L. MEHTA, J q 2012:DHC:8022
09.05.2012 This is a petition assailing the order dated 31.8.2010, whereby the petitioner was declared P.O. in complaint under Section 138, N.I.Act. This order is assailed on the ground that the compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent/complainant Shyoraj Singh and in pursuance thereto, a sum of Rs. I lakh was given by the petitioner/accused to the complainant.
An appncation dated 4.2.2005 was seen to have been filed by the complainant before the M.M. The same was subsequently withdrawn and it is thereafter that the case proceeded for about five years when the impugned order came to be passed. The complainant has denied the compromise before the M.M. and also has not been produced here. The fact that the proceedings continued before the Magistrate even after the alleged compromise coupled with the fact that the same was denied by the complainant by way of filing an application of withdrawal would lead to the only conclusion that the compromise was neither effected nor acted upon. Thus, it could not be said that a valid compromise was
2012:DHC:8022 arrived at between the parties. The payment of Rs. 1 lakh by the petitioner to the complainant, if any, could not be taken as payment towards the compromise in the absence of there being anything on record to substantiate the same or the complainant to acknowledge same. Thus, it would not be just to accept the fact that the case was compromised. I have also gone through the impugned order of
M.M. dated 31.8.2010 and do not fmd any infIrmity or illegality therein.
The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
---- ~. MAY 09, 2012 ~-d-w' M.L. MEHTA, J q 2012:DHC:8022
JUDGMENT