Full Text
Translation output
•'rO,
% 03.06.2011
Present: Mr. M.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for the petitioner with petitioner in person.
Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State.
Mr. Ajit Nair, Adv. for respondent No. 2.
+ Crl. Rev.P. No. 250/2011 & Crl. M.B. No. 897/2011
•k
Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred as "NI Act") against the petitioner before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi. After holding a full-fledged trial, Metropolitan
Magistrate, vide
Present: Mr. M.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for the petitioner with petitioner in person.
Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State.
Mr. Ajit Nair, Adv. for respondent No. 2.
+ Crl. Rev.P. No. 250/2011 & Crl. M.B. No. 897/2011
•k
Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred as "NI Act") against the petitioner before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi. After holding a full-fledged trial, Metropolitan
Magistrate, vide
JUDGMENT
dated ll^h November, 2010 convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N1 Act. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with compensation of ^3 lacs to be paid by the petitioner to respondent
No. 2. Petitioner filed a Crl. Appeal No. 14/2010 which has been
^ dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated
31st March, 2011. That is how, petitioner is before this Court by way of present Revision Petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of the Revision Petition, petitioner and respondent No. 2 have settled the matter. Petitioner has paid a sum of ^2.68 lacs through demand draft No. 002634 dated
2011:DHC:19801
9*^ May, 2011 for ?2,09000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, South Extension
New Delhi, demand draft No. 343527 dated 3r<i June, 2011 for ?41,000/- drawn on UCO Bank and demand draft No. 343526 dated 3^^ June, 2011 for ^18,000/- drawn on UCO Bank to respondent No. 2 towards all the claims of respondent No, 2 involved in the cheque in question.
Respondent No. 2 has stated that in view of the settlement offence of the petitioner can be compounded. Statement of respondent No.
2, on oath, has been recorded separately.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, offence is compounded and petitioner is acquitted.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
June 03, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19801
No. 2. Petitioner filed a Crl. Appeal No. 14/2010 which has been
^ dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated
31st March, 2011. That is how, petitioner is before this Court by way of present Revision Petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of the Revision Petition, petitioner and respondent No. 2 have settled the matter. Petitioner has paid a sum of ^2.68 lacs through demand draft No. 002634 dated
2011:DHC:19801
9*^ May, 2011 for ?2,09000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, South Extension
New Delhi, demand draft No. 343527 dated 3r<i June, 2011 for ?41,000/- drawn on UCO Bank and demand draft No. 343526 dated 3^^ June, 2011 for ^18,000/- drawn on UCO Bank to respondent No. 2 towards all the claims of respondent No, 2 involved in the cheque in question.
Respondent No. 2 has stated that in view of the settlement offence of the petitioner can be compounded. Statement of respondent No.
2, on oath, has been recorded separately.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, offence is compounded and petitioner is acquitted.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
June 03, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:19801