Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 2343/2017
SHREE SHYAMPULP & BOARDMILLS LTD Petitioner Representedby: Ms. GeetaLuthra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pranav Vashistha, Advocate.
Representedby: Mr. VivekBhagat, Advocate withMr.
KishanKumar, Authorised Representative inperson.
Mr.RajeshMahajan, Additional Standing Counsel for State with SI
SanjanKumar,PS B.K Road.
M/S SHREE SHYAMPULP & BOARD MILLS LTD Petitioner
Representedby: Ms. GeetaLuthra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pranav Vashistha, Advocate.
KishanKumar, Authorised Representative inperson.
Mr.RajeshMahajan, Additional Standing Counsel for State with SI
SanjanKumar,PS B.K Road.
ORDER o/„ 31.08.2018
2018:DHC:8852 /? Crl.M.A.No.31167/2018(Exemption)in W.P.(CRL)2343/2017
Cri.M.A.No.31165/2018(Exemption^ in W.P.(CRL)2344/2017
Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
W.P.fCRL^ 2343/2017 and Crl.M.A.No.15146/2017
W.PiCRL^ 2344/2017 and Crl.M.A.No.15147/2017
JUDGMENT
1. By these two petitions, petitioners had sought quashing of the two criminal complaints filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act(in short'NI Act')by the respondent being CC No. 154/1/2014 and 155/1/2014 respectively.
2. Notice in these petitions were issued when learned Senior Counselfor the petitioner stated thatthere is no dispute thatthe loans were taken by the petitioner from the respondents,petitioner wishes to repay the same and the only issue before this Court was that if some time was granted to tlie petitioners to perform the obligation of returning the loan amount, they would satisfy the claims ofthe respondents. Petitioner also showed their willingness to hold talks with the respondents for a settlement preferably a onetime settlement or restructure ofpayment ofall its existing dues. th
3. Thus this Court issued notice in the two petitions on 18 August,
2017. On 25''" September,2017 when the two petitions came up before this Court,learned senior counsel for the petitioner reiterated the willingness for a settlement with the respondents and hence the matters were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre where settlement was arrived at. Despite the settlement till date not even one instalment of the payment has been made. Further learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner company has wound up and a provisional W.F. (CRL)2343/2017& 2344/2017 Page2of[3] liquidator has been appointed.
4. It is thus apparent that the petitioner for the time being is now in no position to pay the money ofthe respondents. As noted above notice was issued in the petitions for quashing of the complaints on the desire of the petitioner to settle the matter which cannot now in the present situation take place.
5. Consequently the petitions and application are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition as and when the final settlement is arrived at and the petitioner is in a position to discharge its liability. Crl. M.A.No.31166/2018(Stay)in W.P.(CRL)2343/2017 CrI. M.A.No.31164/2018(Stay)in W.P.(CRL)2344/2017 Applications are dismissed as infructuous.
MUKTA GUPTA,J. AUGUST 31,2018 'vn' W.P,