Full Text
Translation output
\ $-18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRLREV.P. 409/2011
MANOJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through : Mr. Vivel< Sharnna, Advocate
CRLREV.P. 409/2011
MANOJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through : Mr. Vivel< Sharnna, Advocate
VERSUS
ASHWANI KUMAR & ANR Respondent
Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, APR for the State Mr. K. Gaurav, Advocate for R1
Through : Ms. Ritu Gauba, APR for the State Mr. K. Gaurav, Advocate for R1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
16.09.2011 CrI.
M.A. No. 10986/2011 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands dispose of.
CrI. Rev. No. 409/2011 Notice Learned counsel for respondent No.l accepts notice.
Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide
16.09.2011 CrI.
M.A. No. 10986/2011 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands dispose of.
CrI. Rev. No. 409/2011 Notice Learned counsel for respondent No.l accepts notice.
Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide
ORDER
dated 21^*^ April, 2011, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
2011:DHC:19642 Instruments Act and vide order dated 27*^^ April, 2011, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of four months. He was further directed to pay a compensation of
Rs.45,750/- along with interest @ 9% per annum within 30 days, from the date of return memo i.e. 5"^^ April, 2004 till its realization, and in default of compensation, the petitioner was to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months and a sum of Rs.3,000/- was also awarded to the complainant as litigation charges under Section 359 CrPC to be paid within 30 days, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.l namely Ashwani Kumar S/o Durga Dass has amicably settled the issue qua the complaint being filed under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner.
Respondent No.l is present in person with his counsel namely Mr. K. Gaurav, Advocate and submits that he does not want to pursue the case further as he has received the entire amount of Rs.70,000/- in lieu of total settlement in the said complaint and he has no objection if the judgment dated 21^^
April, 2011 and the order dated 19^^ August, 2011 is not given effect.
Since the matter has been settled between the parties, the petitioner is acquitted from the case as per the provision enumerated in Section. 320(8) CrPC. Accordingly, the judgment dated 21^^ April, 2011 and the orders dated 27^^ April, 2011 and judgment dated 19^^ August, 2011 are set aside. The jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner forthwith. The petition is allowed in above terms.
Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance. Order dasti.
CrI. M.B. 1612/2011(Bail)
Since the revision petition has been disposed of, the application has become infructuous.
Dismissed as infructuous.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 'raj' SURESH KAIT, J
2011:DHC:19642 Instruments Act and vide order dated 27*^^ April, 2011, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of four months. He was further directed to pay a compensation of
Rs.45,750/- along with interest @ 9% per annum within 30 days, from the date of return memo i.e. 5"^^ April, 2004 till its realization, and in default of compensation, the petitioner was to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months and a sum of Rs.3,000/- was also awarded to the complainant as litigation charges under Section 359 CrPC to be paid within 30 days, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.l namely Ashwani Kumar S/o Durga Dass has amicably settled the issue qua the complaint being filed under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner.
Respondent No.l is present in person with his counsel namely Mr. K. Gaurav, Advocate and submits that he does not want to pursue the case further as he has received the entire amount of Rs.70,000/- in lieu of total settlement in the said complaint and he has no objection if the judgment dated 21^^
April, 2011 and the order dated 19^^ August, 2011 is not given effect.
Since the matter has been settled between the parties, the petitioner is acquitted from the case as per the provision enumerated in Section. 320(8) CrPC. Accordingly, the judgment dated 21^^ April, 2011 and the orders dated 27^^ April, 2011 and judgment dated 19^^ August, 2011 are set aside. The jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner forthwith. The petition is allowed in above terms.
Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance. Order dasti.
CrI. M.B. 1612/2011(Bail)
Since the revision petition has been disposed of, the application has become infructuous.
Dismissed as infructuous.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 'raj' SURESH KAIT, J