Rajkumar Kukreja v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The Petitioner has preferred,the present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 ofthe Code olCriminal Procedure interalia seeking quashing of.an^ordex dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South-East District, Saket, New Delhi in Criminal Appealno.6il|;2!^8suphqild^ judgmentofconviction and sentence datdd 04:05.2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East District, Saket Court, New Delhi in Criminal Complaint no. 1215 of 2015 whereby the Petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 ofthe NegotiableInstruments Actand has been sentenced to undergo a Simple Imprisonmentfor a period ofone year alongwith paymentofRs.4,00,000/-to the RespondentNo.2as compensation. Crl. Rev.P.No.543/2018 Page[1] of[5] 2018:DHC:8599

2. The brief facts as emerge from the record are that the Respondent No.2(hereinafter referred to as the"Complainant"),filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate,South-East District, Saket Court,New Delhi alleging therein that Petitioner-Accused had approached the Complainant for a friendly interest-free loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- and accordingly on his request, the Complainant loaned an interest-free loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the Petitioner-Accused. The Petitioner- Accused,with a view to discharge his liability, issued a cheque dated ^ 06.08.2013 bearing no.'090459' for a sum ofRs. 3,00,000/- to the Respondent No.2, drawn at Punjab;National Bank,Defence Colony, New Delhi. However, upon.presbntatibn of the aforesaid cheque at ICICI Bank Ltd., Rohini, NeW'Dqihi/hy the Respondent No.2,the kame was dishonored on accotint^-'tmi^cientfunds"in the account of the Petitioner-Accused./Sincje ^H^i^^itioner-Accused failed to make the payment good despite'oppoifunity having been afforded by the Complainant, by way of a legal notice dated 30.08.2013, he was compelled to initiate proceedings against the Petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which came to be registered as Criminal complaint NO. 1215 of2015.

3. It transpires that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the Petitioner and the RespondentNo.2entered into a settlement on 08.10.2015 wherein the Petitioner-Accused undertook to pay the settlement amount of Rs. Crl Rev.P.No.543/2018 Page2of[5] 3,00,000/- to the Complainant in three equal installments and upon failure to pay the same,he would be liable to pay double the cheque amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Upon his failure to pay the settlement amount ofRs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant,the learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties,came to the conclusion that the present Petitioner-Accused is guilty ofhaving committed the offence punishable under Section 138 ofthe Act, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo M Simple Imprisonmentfor a period pfone year along with a fine ofRs. 4,00,000/-._ U: ^ 4. Feeling aggrieved-:ahd, d;isshti^ with the judgment of conviction and order of sentente/pass^^^^^^ the learned:Trial Court, the Petitioner-Accused filed qii appealiuhder Section 374 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court/iof Additional Session Judge, South-East District, New Delhi which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal no.62fof26T[8],|h0weV!er^ remains thatthe same was dismissed, as a result,;6f-vyfec^^^ judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid backgroundiThpipresi^t Retitiori^Accused approached this court by way of instant Criminal Revision Petition, praying for his acquittal after quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below.

5. On 22.06.2018, this Court was informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 had arrived at a settlement.Today,during the proceedings ofthe case, learned counsel for the Petitioner has moved an application under Crl Rev.P.No.543/2018 Page3of[5] -r Section 482 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure,for compounding of the offence/case in question, which is taken on record and the Registry is directed to register the same. Learned Counsel for the parties, on instructions from their respective clients, who are present in Court, stated that parties have amicably settled the matter and in view of the compromise arrived inter-se the parties by virtue of Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.06.2018, entire compensation amount stands paid to the Complainant. The Registry is directedto numberthe aforesaid,,^Application.

6. Mr., Raunak Satpathy,,,leaMed,.cqu^^^ on instructions of Complainantnamely Mr.:;BharatBHushah^lpategorically^ thatthe ■ ■. ^ -A'- Complainant has no objection in case the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Courts below;are quashed and set-aside and the Petitioner-Accused is 'acquitted of charge framed against him. Learned counsel for the,parties further stated that since parties have compromised the matter amicably and,as such,instant matter may be ordered to be compounded'Tri terms'of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabha v. Sayed BabalalH. (2010)5see663.

7. A perusal ofthe averments contained in the application,clearly show that the parties have amicably settled the matter by virtue of Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.06.2018. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2submits that he has no objection in case the instant matter is ordered to be compounded in terms ofthejudgment passed bythe Hon'ble Apex CouitinDamodarS.Prabhu case supra. The offence under Section 138.ofthe Act is compoundable as per Crl.Rev.P.No.543/2018 Page4of[5] X r Section 147 of the Act and consequently, this court sees no impediment in accepting the aforesaid prayer and subject to the Petitioner paying costs of Rs. 10,000/- to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, the compounding of the offence under section 138 ofthe Act is allowed. Accordingly,the judgments ofconviction and sentence passed by the learned courts below are quashed and setaside. The accused is acquitted ofthe charge so framed against him under Section 138 ofthe Act. i

8. Atthis stage,learned counselforthe Petitioner praysthatsince the Petitioned hhs.been in.judiq^^^ 30ip[5],2018, he may be released forthwith.: Accordingly,ut is directed thatdsubject to the Petitioner depositing the;,aforementioned costs to the;Delhi High CourtLegal Services Conimitteeyhe.be.released forthwith.

9. The petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending applications,ifany. - I j ^ f - 1 d-. S A P LLI JUNE 29,2018/gm Crl. Rev.P.No. 543/2018 Page5of[5]