Full Text
Translation output
51&56 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 238/2009
G.B. SINGH
Through
CRL.REV.P. 238/2009
G.B. SINGH
Through
VERSUS
STATE & ANR.
Through Petitioner Mr. G. Suraj, Advocate with Petitioner in person.
Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State
Mr. Pravin Nigam, Adv. for R-2 with Respondent No.2 in person.
Through Petitioner Mr. G. Suraj, Advocate with Petitioner in person.
Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State
Mr. Pravin Nigam, Adv. for R-2 with Respondent No.2 in person.
AND
CRL.REV.P. 239/2009
G.B. SINGH Petitioner Tlirough Ml". G. Suraj, Advocate with Petitioner
G.B. SINGH Petitioner Tlirough Ml". G. Suraj, Advocate with Petitioner
VERSUS
AND
Through Mi'. MukeshGupta, APP for the State
Through Mr. G. Suraj, Advocate with Petitioner
Tlu-ough Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State
Through Mi'. MukeshGupta, APP for the State
Through Mr. G. Suraj, Advocate with Petitioner
Tlu-ough Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State
CRL.REV.P. 240/2009
VERSUS
2011:DHC:19840 AND
CRL.REV.P. 241/2009
Through
Through
VERSUS
Through AND Ml-. G. Suraj, Advocate with Petitioner
RespondentNo.2 in person.
RespondentNo.2 in person.
CRL.REV.P. 242/2009
Through
Through
VERSUS
Through AND
CRL.REV.P. 243/2009
Through
Through
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. Respondent
Through Mi*. Mukesh Gupta, APP for theState t c
Through Mi*. Mukesh Gupta, APP for theState t c
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER o/o 28.07.2011 The Petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court for offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaint filed by the
Respondent No. 2 and awarded a sentence ofimprisonment for 10 months and to pay a compensation ofRs. 1.30 lacs. The appeal against the same has also been dismissed.
During the pendency of the present petition, the Petitioner and the
Respondent No. 2have amicably settled the matter before the Delhi High Court
Mediation & Conciliation Centre. As per the terms of the settlement between the parties, six complaint cases in which the Petitioner has been convicted, fixed matters pending arbitration and one FIR registered under Section 420 IPC has been settled. As per the tenns of settlement, the Petitioner has already deposited a sum ofRs. 11,00,529 before the Court of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate Sh. Ashish Aggarwal, Tis Hazari. The Petitioner has also given ten post-dated cheques worth Rs. 3,50,000/- to be encashed every month.
In view of the settlement, the Respondent No. 2 who is present in person and is identified by his counsel states that he does not want to pursue the abovementioned complaints and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their f
/ # differences of their own free will and volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned
ORDER o/o 28.07.2011 The Petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court for offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaint filed by the
Respondent No. 2 and awarded a sentence ofimprisonment for 10 months and to pay a compensation ofRs. 1.30 lacs. The appeal against the same has also been dismissed.
During the pendency of the present petition, the Petitioner and the
Respondent No. 2have amicably settled the matter before the Delhi High Court
Mediation & Conciliation Centre. As per the terms of the settlement between the parties, six complaint cases in which the Petitioner has been convicted, fixed matters pending arbitration and one FIR registered under Section 420 IPC has been settled. As per the tenns of settlement, the Petitioner has already deposited a sum ofRs. 11,00,529 before the Court of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate Sh. Ashish Aggarwal, Tis Hazari. The Petitioner has also given ten post-dated cheques worth Rs. 3,50,000/- to be encashed every month.
In view of the settlement, the Respondent No. 2 who is present in person and is identified by his counsel states that he does not want to pursue the abovementioned complaints and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their f
/ # differences of their own free will and volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned
JUDGMENT
convicting the Petitioner. The offence is compoundable and can be compounded even at the stage ofrevision.
Thus, the impugned orders dated 30^'' August, 2008 convicting the Petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the orders on sentence dated lO^*" September, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate are set aside.
Petitions are disposed of.
MUKTA GUPTA,J JULY 28, 2011 'dk'
Thus, the impugned orders dated 30^'' August, 2008 convicting the Petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the orders on sentence dated lO^*" September, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate are set aside.
Petitions are disposed of.
MUKTA GUPTA,J JULY 28, 2011 'dk'