Samir Roy v. Indocom Micro Engineers Ltd

138 N.I. Act and imposed a sentence of R.I. for six months. The company IWS WEBEL Informatics Ltd. was also convicted and directed to pay a compensation in the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs along with the present Petitioner.

CRL.REVP. 279/2011 2011:DHC:19810 In default the Petitioner was directed to serve S.I. for two months and the complainant i.e. the Respondent herein was free to recover the amount of compensation from the company as per the rules. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting and sentencing him which was dismissed and, thus, the present revision petition. During the pendency of the present petition the parties i.e. the Petitioner and the complainant/ Respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the differences. The complainant is represented through Shri Vtjay Kumar Aggarwal who had appeared as CW2 before the Leamed Trial Court. He is identified by the counsel. He states that he has seffled the matter with Shri Samir Roy and in terms of the said settlement has received a sum of Rs. 13 lakhs. He further states that he is pursuing his remedies against the company NI/S WEBEL Informatics Ltd. which is represented before the Appellate Court through authorized representative. Since he has settled the matter with the Petitioner, he does not want to pursue the aforementioned complaint against him and prays that the conviction and order on sentence against the Petitioner be quashed. In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the CEL.REVn. 2Tg/2011 o differences of their own free will, without any coercion and the disputes are essentially civil in nature, it would be in the interest ofjustice to set aside the order of conviction and sentence qua the Petitioner. There is no legal impediment in quashing the abovementioned orders qua the Petitioner in view of the settlement between the parties. Consequently, the order dated zI't April, 20lI convicting the Petitioner for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and the order dated 7th Muy, 20ll directing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation and in default of payment of compensation to undergo S.I. for two months is set aside. The order dated 3'd June, 2OII dismissing the appeal is also set aside. The complainant who is represented through Shri Vtjuy Kumar Aggarwaf its Managing Director and is identified by the learned counsel has signed the order sheet in acknowledgement of his statement made before this Court. Petition and applications are disposed of. Order Dasti. JULY 07,20\l 'ga'

CRL.REV.P. 279/2011 're- MUKTA GUPTA, J. 6-K''*{^^-T$b?-^J Sl'F'ffi:::t ieffiHo,\qp- page 3 of3

JUDGMENT