Full Text
Translation output
/3 $-16, 17 & 18 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 134/2016
M/S A TO Z BARTER PVT. LTD. & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aneesh Sharma, Mr. Farhan Abdullah and Mr. Arjun Garg, Advs.
CRL.REV.P. 134/2016
M/S A TO Z BARTER PVT. LTD. & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aneesh Sharma, Mr. Farhan Abdullah and Mr. Arjun Garg, Advs.
VERSUS
M/S KRK ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarun Shokeen, Adv. with Mr. Kunal Ashok, Director & A.R. of
Respondent in person.
Through: Mr. Tarun Shokeen, Adv. with Mr. Kunal Ashok, Director & A.R. of
Respondent in person.
AND
CRL.REV.P. 139/2016
VERSUS
M/S KRK ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Respondent AND
CRL.REV.P. 140/2016
VERSUS
M/S KRK ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD Respondent
CORAM:
2016:DHC:9228
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
06.10.2016 Respondent had filed three separate complaint cases under Section
138 oftheNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short) in respect of three dishonoured cheques issued by the petitioner. After trial, trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act in three complaint cases, that is, CC 521/1/12, CC 522/1/12 and CC 534/1/12 all titled as M/s
KRK Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Petitioner preferred appeals against its conviction as well as sentence handed down by the trail court. Appeals were dismissed by the orders impugned in these revision petitions.
During the pendency of these revision petitions, respondent
-I (complainant) and petitioner (accused) have settled the matter before the
Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre vide Settlement
Agreement dated 13^'' July, 2016, which is marked as Mark 'C-1'. In terms ofthe settlement, entire settled amount, thatis, ^17.25 lacs has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent and receipt thereofhas been admitted by Mr. Kunal Ashok who is Director as well as Authorised Representative of respondent. Mr. Kunal Ashok submits that since entire settled amount has been paid by the petitioner, respondent has no objection in case the offence under Section 138 of the Act, involved in all the revision petitions, is compounded.
Accordingly, in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent before the Delhi High Court Mediation &
Conciliation Centre vide Mark 'C-l' and since respondent has agreed for compounding of the offence, offence under Section 138 of the Act is permitted to be compounded and petitioner in all the three revision petitions is acquitted.
All therevision petitions are disposed ofinthe above terms.
Dasti.
OCTOBER 06,2016 ga
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
06.10.2016 Respondent had filed three separate complaint cases under Section
138 oftheNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short) in respect of three dishonoured cheques issued by the petitioner. After trial, trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act in three complaint cases, that is, CC 521/1/12, CC 522/1/12 and CC 534/1/12 all titled as M/s
KRK Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s A to Z Barter Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Petitioner preferred appeals against its conviction as well as sentence handed down by the trail court. Appeals were dismissed by the orders impugned in these revision petitions.
During the pendency of these revision petitions, respondent
-I (complainant) and petitioner (accused) have settled the matter before the
Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre vide Settlement
Agreement dated 13^'' July, 2016, which is marked as Mark 'C-1'. In terms ofthe settlement, entire settled amount, thatis, ^17.25 lacs has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent and receipt thereofhas been admitted by Mr. Kunal Ashok who is Director as well as Authorised Representative of respondent. Mr. Kunal Ashok submits that since entire settled amount has been paid by the petitioner, respondent has no objection in case the offence under Section 138 of the Act, involved in all the revision petitions, is compounded.
Accordingly, in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent before the Delhi High Court Mediation &
Conciliation Centre vide Mark 'C-l' and since respondent has agreed for compounding of the offence, offence under Section 138 of the Act is permitted to be compounded and petitioner in all the three revision petitions is acquitted.
All therevision petitions are disposed ofinthe above terms.
Dasti.
OCTOBER 06,2016 ga
JUDGMENT