Delhi District Court
In Re vs Neo Infratech Pvt. Ltd on 27 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MR. SANJAY KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :
WEST DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 499/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-010282-2019
In re:
Sh. Deepak Sharma
S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar
R/o B-28, Rattan Bagh
Nangloi, Delhi-110041. . . . . Petitioner/revisionist
Versus
1. NEO Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office -GTB Enclave
810, Janta Flats, Delhi-110039.
Also At :-
P-8B, Sector-23, Sanjay Nagar
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002.
2. Sh. Sunil Kumar (Director)
S/o. Sh. Balbeer Singh
R/o. 35-A, NH-24, Mehrauli
Ghaziabad, Kavi Nagar
U. P. - 201002. ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 23.12.2019
Date of hearing arguments : 12.09.2022
Date of order : 27.09.2022
Appearances:
Sh. Vipin Bhasker, Advocate for petitioner/revisionist.
Sh. Hari Om Giri and Sh. Puneet Kumar Saxena, Advocates for
the respondents No.2/Director of respondent No.1 company.
ORDER
1. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner / revisionist under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C against the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Court of Sh. Rinku Jain, Ld. MM-02 (NI Act) (West), THC, Delhi (in short, Ld. Trial Court) in a case bearing CC No. 12892/2018 CR No. 499/19 Page No.1of33 titled 'Deepak Sharma vs. NEO Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.', whereby the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner / revisionist under Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C.
2. In brief, the facts are that on 26.09.2018, the petitioner / revisionist filed a complaint case under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short, 'NI Act') bearing No. 12892/2018 titled 'Deepak Sharma vs. Neo Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.' against the respondents before the Ld. CMM (West), THC, Delhi. It is stated that on 04.10.2019, the complaint case was listed before the Ld. MM for pre- summoning wherein after considering the complaint and documents, summons were issued against the respondents; and that on the said date, the respondent No.2 was also present alongwith the Board Resolution in his favour to appear before the Ld. Trial Court and accepted the summons on behalf of himself and the respondent No.1. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 showed his willingness and bonafide to settle the matter with the complainant and handed over a post dated cheque bearing No. 277228 dated 25.11.2018 for an amount of Rs.10 lacs in favour of the complainant which was duly recorded by the Ld. Trial Court in the order dated 04.10.2018.
3. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court considering the possibility of settlement between the petitioner and respondents referred the matter before the Mediation Cell, Tis Hazari Courts for 09.10.2018 at 2.00 p.m. and listed the matter before him for report of mediation on 09.01.2019. It is further stated that on 09.10.2018 at 2.00 p.m., the petitioner and the respondent No.2 had appeared before the Mediation Cell and after the CR No. 499/19 Page No.2of33 negotiation, a settlement has been arrived at between them which has been duly recorded and signed by both the parties before the Ld. Mediator, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi wherein it has been agreed between the parties that the respondent No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 75 lacs to the petitioner towards full and final settlement of the petitioner / cheque in question, out of which, a sum of Rs. 10 lacs have already been received by the petitioner from the respondent No.2 before the Referral Court and the balance sum of Rs. 65 lacs shall be paid in three installments by way of RIGS in the bank account of the petitioner bearing No. 520101221613761 with Corporation Bank, Nangloi Branch, Delhi with IFSC Code - CORPOOOO468 i.e. Rs. 15 lacs on or before 25.01.2019; Rs. 25 lacs on or before 25.02.2019; and Rs. 25 lacs on or before 25.03.2019. It is further agreed that after receiving the settled amount, the complainant will withdraw the complaint case and in case the respondent No.2 commits any default in making payment of any installment, then the respondent No.2 shall pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant and the complainant shall be at liberty to pursue the complaint case as per law.
4. It is stated that on 25.11.2018, the petitioner deposited the cheque bearing No. 277228 for Rs. 10 lacs with his banker, which was handed over by the respondent No.2 in favour of petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court on 04.10.2018 but the petitioner was shocked when he came to know that the same was got dishonoured by the banker of the respondent no.2 on the ground of 'insufficient funds'. It is further stated that when the petitioner approached the respondent No.2, he requested some more time for making the payment; and that on 09.01.2019, none had appeared on behalf of the respondents CR No. 499/19 Page No.3of33 before the Ld. Trial Court and the respondent No.2 telephonically requested the petitioner for some more time for making the payments in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, which facts were apprised by the petitioner to the Ld. Trial Court and the matter was adjourned for 18.04.2019. It is further stated that on 18.04.2019, when none had appeared on behalf of the respondent, the Ld. Trial Court issued NBWs against the respondent for 22.08.2019.
5. It is stated that after issuance of the NBWs, the respondent No.2 filed an application for cancellation of NBWs, which was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court; and that on 22.08.2019, the respondent No.2 appeared before the Ld. Trial Court and was admitted to bail on furnishing of personal bond and surety bond for a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs each and the matter was adjourned for framing of notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. and filing of application u/s. 145(2) of the NI Act. It is further stated that an application u/s. 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on 22.08.2019.
6. It is stated that the petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and filed a criminal revision petition bearing No. 1012/2019 challenging the order dated 22.08.2019 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 23.09.2019 disposed of the said revision petition with the direction to the petitioner to file an appropriate application bringing all the facts before the Ld. Trial Court so that the Ld. Trial Court may follow law laid down by Hon'ble High Court in the case Dayawati vs. Yogesh Kumar Gosain, 243 (2017) DLT 117 (DB). It is further stated that on 23.10.2019, the ld. Counsel for the petitioner pressed for the application filed u/s. 421 read with 431 Cr.P.C.
CR No. 499/19 Page No.4of33 filed on 22.08.2019 in terms of abovesaid directions; and that the respondent No.2 filed reply to the same alongwith an affidavit dated 23.10.2018 stating that the mediation settlement was arrived at without his consent and free will. The Ld. Trial Court sent intimation with regard to the same to the Ld. Judge In-Charge, Mediation Centre alongwith the copy of mediation settlement and the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2. It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both the parties, vide its impugned order dated 03.12.2019 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner u/s. 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C.
7. Petitioner / revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 interalia on the grounds that the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court have been passed in undue haste and without application of mind and the same is liable to be set- aside on this ground alone; and that the impugned order is against the basic principles of law and also against the facts of the present case. It is further stated that Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 has already settled the matter before the Mediation Cell and accepted his liability towards the petitioner; and that the respondent to show his bonafide to settle the matter even issued a cheque bearing No. 277228 dated 25.11.2018 in favour of the petitioner, which got dishonoured on presentation for insufficient balance.
8. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the cheque handed over by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner was towards the first installment of the settlement agreement signed and CR No. 499/19 Page No.5of33 executed between the petitioner and the respondents, which clearly shows that the respondent no.2 has already acted upon the settlement. It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the respondents till date has neither challenged the settlement agreement signed and executed between the parties nor filed any complaint against the petitioner, which clearly shows that the settlement has already attained its finality. It is further stated while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s. Arun International vs. State of Delhi, 2015 SCC Online DEL 9334 that it was held that mediation settlement cannot be challenged on any ground whatsoever and "it is settled law and even otherwise the settlement of the Mediation Cell is deemed to be a decree and cannot be challenged."
9. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dayawati (supra) laid down the guide line which is to be followed by the ld. MM in all Negotiable Instruments Act cases where the matters are settled before the Mediation Cell. It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that it is well settled law that there can be no manner of doubt that once a settlement reported to the Court and made the basis of seeking the Court's indulgence, the parties ought not to be able to resile from such a position. It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order also failed to appreciate that it is well settled law that the parties to a settlement agreement entered into through a formal mediation process being held accountable for honouring the same is really enforcing the legislative mandate in enacting Sections 138 and 147 of the NI CR No. 499/19 Page No.6of33 Act to ensure an expeditious time bound remedy for recovery of the cheque amounts. It is further stated that the breach of a lawfully entered agreement would not only frustrate the parties to the mediation but would be opposed to the spirit, intendment and purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act and would defeat the ends of justice. It is further stated that the Courts cannot permit use of mediation as a tool to abuse judicial process whereas the respondent No.2 has chosen the mediation proceedings only to delay the lawful claim of the petitioner.
10. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the affidavit filed by the respondent was totally false and frivolous and that it is well settled law that the Court after taking on record the settlement stands empowered to make consequential relief and further directions to the respondent to pay the money in terms of mediated settlement and also direct that the parties would remain bound by the terms thereof. It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 mislead and issued a post dated cheque to show his bonafide, which got dishonoured on its presentation, which clearly shows the malafide intention of the respondents.
11. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law since the same has been filed after lapse of one year from the date of signing / execution of the settlement agreement between the parties and nowhere the respondent No.2 has denied his signatures neither on the settlement agreement nor on the CR No. 499/19 Page No.7of33 cheque issued in favour of the petitioner towards first installment of settlement. It is further stated that the impugned order is liable to be set aside in as much as the order passed by the ld. Trial Court is against the provisions contained in Cr.P.C.
12. Notices of the present revision petition was issued to the respondents for 05.02.2020 and 23.03.2020 but the same were received back unexecuted. Thereafter, due to COVID-19 Pandemic situation, the proceedings were adjourned enbloc. On 04.12.2020, since none has appeared on behalf of the respondents, Court notice was issued to the parties. On 30.03.2021, since none has appeared on behalf of the respondents, BWs were issued against him for 07.06.2021. Again, on 07.06.2021, the physical hearing was suspended due to COVID-19 Pandemic situation and the matter was adjourned enbloc. On 04.08.2021, considering the report received for 05.02.2020 that the respondents have left the given address, BWs were issued against respondent No.2 and on 22.09.2021, NBWs were issued against him. On 24.11.2021 after about two years, the respondent No.2 put in appearance and contested the present revision petition by filing a reply dated 02.02.2022.
13. In the reply, the respondent No.2 has stated that the revision petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has intentionally and deliberately not made the other Directors as party to the present petition while the allegations have been drawn against other respondents also. It is stated that the Director Mr. Rishi Arora was the main prime culprit who had taken money and no money was accounted in the company. It is further stated that the issue / controversy can never be decided without they being party to the proceedings and thus, CR No. 499/19 Page No.8of33 on account of deliberate action of non joinder of party and manipulation of the documents, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. It is stated that the complainant had failed to comply with the directions of the Ld. Trial Court under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and the summons with complete set of paper book was never supplied to the respondent inspite of specific orders passed by the ld. Trial Court and thus, the revision petition on this ground alone is not maintainable. It is stated that the respondent No.2 denied to any settlement in the Mediation Cell being arrived on his free will, accord and satisfaction and states that the same was arrived by creating undue pressure upon him by the complainant and his associated present there. It is further stated that the settlement was result of compulsion tactics adopted and thus, the accused persons / respondents refuse to the said settlement and thus, the settlement was arrived on coercion, undue pressure and the application filed is a result of said settlement which is not acceptable.
15. It is stated that the petitioner had filed similar case with similar facts against the answering respondent No.2 and similar documents have been reproduced in the said matter and the said documents are manipulated and thus, the present revision petition is an abuse of process of law and is a result of malpractices played with an intent and motive to extort money. It is further stated that the petitioner is just and accountant in respondent No.1's company and he has no worth to give such a huge loan; and that no ITR has been filed showing his worth. It is further stated that when the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are applied considering the facts of the case.
CR No. 499/19 Page No.9of33
16. It is stated that the liability does not exist of the respondent No.2 since the amount was never received by him and further the letter which has been relied upon was also not given by the respondent No.2. It is further stated that the ledger relied upon by the petitioner was also not the ledger of the company and the cheque issued was never in discharge of any liability. It is further stated that the complaint filed is a result of concealment, misrepresentation and suppression of the material facts, which have been deliberately and intentionally not been brought on record with an intent and motive to grab an order from this Court.
17. It is stated that the petitioner has concealed the fact that no transaction had ever accrued between the respondent No.2 or respondent No.1 and as such there appeared no transaction between them and there was no liability which accrued either upon the company or on respondent No.2. It is further stated that the petitioner has concealed the fact that he has joined hands with the other Director, namely Mr. Rishi Arora and in a sheet of vengeance, he has adopted such malpractice in a planned manner by presenting the blank signed cheque which was in possession of the petitioner in good faith since he was the Accountant of the company. It is further stated that Mr. Rishi Arora and the petitioner are working in conspiracy with each other has reproduced documents such as Ledger Account showing Rs. 75 lacs as cash transaction only.
18. It is stated that using the letter head of the company, Mr.Rishi Arora had made a letter showing the account as Loan amount due of Rs. 75 lacs and the cheque was issued to the respondent No.2-Mr.Sunil Kumar as Authorized Signatory of CR No. 499/19 Page No.10of33 respondent No.1-M/s. Neo Infratech (India) Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated that in this manner, although there was no liability of the company since no loan amount was received from the petitioner, the same was acknowledged by the Director working prejudicial to the interest of the company by allowing him to manipulate the accounting records. It is further stated that as such the amount sought to be recovered is due to the illegal actions initiated in conspiracy with other Director Mr. Rishi Arora against whom necessary action was proceeded by the respondent No.2; and that no amount was ever received either by the respondent No.1 or by the respondent No.2.
19. It is stated that the petitioner has concealed the factum that he was the employee and was working as Accountant in the company and was holding the blank signed cheques in his possession. It is further stated that the cheques duly signed was given in good faith for the functioning of the company in his absence; and that the cheque in dispute and question has been misused by the petitioner for which the complaint has been preferred. It is further stated that the malafide intention and motive of grabbing of money is prevalent which disentitles for any relief. It is further stated that the petitioner has further deliberately and intentionally initially filed the case against all the Directors in order to harass the entire persons without any reasons and has not made all the Directors of the company as party to the present revision petition; and that no prima facie case was established against them and they were discharged.
20. It is stated that the petitioner on the very first date of hearing before hearing had threatened the respondent No.2 and had also procured the cheques from him and had CR No. 499/19 Page No.11of33 submitted the same as security. It is further stated that in the process even after the knowledge by befooling the Court without any settlement in Mediation arrived as can be perused from order dated 04.10.2018, the cheque No. 277228 dated 25.11.2013 of Rs. 10 lacs was released. It is further stated that the order itself clarifies that the mediation had taken place on 09.10.2018 and the application has been filed on the basis of order dated 04.10.2018 till that date no settlement was arrived at. It is further stated that the application filed under Section 421 Cr.P.C. moved was a sheer abuses of process of law and is not maintainable.
21. It is stated that the respondent No.2 denies to the settlement arrived on free will on 27.11.2018 between the parties; and that no liability ever existed to be paid by the respondents. It is further stated that the entire action of settlement arrived at between the parties is on coercion and undue pressure and compulsion; and that the respondent No.2 denies as such to the settlement. It is further stated that there was no resolution which was on record as alleged that the said resolution was filed by the respondent No.2 having authority to grab an order from this Court. It is further stated that the principle laid down in the matter of Dayawati (supra) if applied is not applicable in the present case. It is further stated relying on the impugned order that the settlement has never been accepted before this Court and the orders passed after the Mediation settlement report can be perused till date.
22. It is stated that the present revision petition filed is arising out of an interim order passed dismissing the application which is not maintainable considering the misrepresentation, CR No. 499/19 Page No.12of33 concealment of relevant material facts; and that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and is trying to enforce a law which is not applicable considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
23. In parawise reply on merits, the respondent No.2 has denied the averments made in the revision petition and reiterated the averments made in the reply to the present revision petition.
24. I have heard Sh. Vipin Bhasker, Ld. Counsel for revisionist and Sh. Hari Om Giri and Sh. Punit Kumar Saxena, Advocates for the respondent and perused the records of the present petition and of the Ld. Trial Court. I have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties.
25. In the written submissions/arguments, ld. Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the present revision petition stated that the matter before the Mediation Cell on 09.10.2018 was duly signed by both the parties and the respondent accepted his liability towards the petitioner, which settlement was duly informed to the Ld. Trial Court which is clearly mentioned in the order dated 18.04.2019. It is further stated that the agreement is specifically mentioned that the parties have entered into the settlement out of their own free will, without any pressure or coercion and without any threat from any corner; and that the contents of the settlement agreement have been read over and explained to them in vernacular language; and that it has been agreed between the parties that they shall be bound by the terms of the settlement.
CR No. 499/19 Page No.13of33
26. It is stated that the respondent to show his bonafide to settle the matter, issued a cheque bearing No. 277228 dated 25.11.2018 in favour of petitioner for an amount of Rs. 10 lacs towards the first installment of settlement amount, which shows the respondent has acted upon the settlement and accepted the terms of the same. It is further stated that the said fact is also mentioned in the settlement agreement dated 09.10.2018 that out of the total settlement amount of Rs. 75 lacs, the complainant has received a sum of Rs. 10 lacs cheque dated 25.11.2018.
27. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court wrongly accepted the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, which has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law since the same has been filed after lapse of one year from the signing of an execution of settlement agreement. It is further stated that nowhere the respondent No.2 has denied his signatures either on the settlement agreement or on the cheque issued in favour of petitioner towards the first installment of settlement. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 has till date neither challenged the settlement agreement signed and executed by him before any competent authority not filed any complaint against the petitioner which clearly shows that the settlement has already attained its finality. It is further stated that the present revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed and the respondents may be directed to pay the amount of the settlement as agreed in terms of Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C.
28. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner in the cases M/s. Dynamic Movers India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. CR No. 499/19 Page No.14of33 Akhil Poddar, Crl. M C 1984/2020; Double Dot Finance Ltd. vs. Goyal MG Ltd. & Anr., 117 (2005) DLT 330; Abhinav Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. Uppal Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., 2014 SCC Online Del 3304;
Naveen Kumar vs. Smt. Khilya Devi & Anr., MANU/DE/3630/2011; M/s. Arun International vs. State of Delhi & Anr., 2015 SCC Online Del 9334; Ashok Kumar Sehgal & Ors. vs. State & Ors., 2018 (4) JCC 2096; Chander Gupt vs. Bharat Gupt & Anr., MANU/DE/2201/2018; M/s. Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. vs, Manoj Goel, Criminal Appeal No. 1068/2021; and Dayawati (supra).
29. In the written submissions/arguments, ld. Counsel for the respondent reiterating the averments made in the reply to the present revision petition stated that the revision filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is a sheer abuse of process of law and Court and therefore, is liable to be dismissed outrightly. It is further stated that there exist no liability of the Company and no friendly loan was ever remitted / given to the Company; and that no money was received, accounted in the Company; and that the cheque amount is a result of a fraudulent practice played in conspiracy with Mr. Rishi Arora.
30. It is stated that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was an Accountant of the respondent company and was holding the duly signed cheques which was misused for his personal gain; and that the Ld. Trial Court has framed notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. as per the law on the date fixed for 20.07.2022 and the present revision petition has been filed concealing facts. It is further stated that the settlement proceedings was initiated by befooling the respondent No.2 and CR No. 499/19 Page No.15of33 procuring the signatures wherein he was not even having knowledge of the complaint filed before this Court. It is further stated that there appears manipulation of the documents for wrongfully gaining from the respondent and created a fabricated document working in connivance with the Director Mr. Rishi Arora viz. Ledger Statement, Letter of Loan taken by Company signed by Mr. Rishi Arora.
31. It is stated that the complainant / petitioner had failed to comply with the directions of the Ld. Trial Court under Section 204 and 208 Cr.P.C.; and that judicial notice has to be taken of the order passed in similar matter wherein the similar documents have been filed and relied upon the said matter was decided against the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner had no worth to give such huge loan; and that no ITR or evidence has been filed proving its worth. It is further stated that the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable; and that the complaint filed is on account of concealment, misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. It is stated that the principle of Dayawati (supra) is not applicable in the present matter and relied on the cases Pooja Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Prabhuprem Infotech Pvt. Ltd., ARB. P. 573/2020 and M/s. Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
32. In order to appreciate the respective submissions of both the parties, let us peruse the Trial Court Record. The petitioner / complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act on 26.09.2018 before the Ld. CMM, who marked it to Ld. MM for 04.10.2018. On 04.10.2018, complaint was registered and the Ld. MM as per material on record, affidavit of the complainant tendered alongwith CR No. 499/19 Page No.16of33 documents took cognizance against the accused No.1 M/s. Neo Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and accused No.2 Sunil Kumar, Director. Ld. Counsel for the complainant on the same day submitted that the accused No.2 Sunil Kumar is also available in the Court. Accused No.2 came forward and produced his Voter ID Card and affirmed that he is the accused No.2 in the present case and accepted the summons on his behalf and also on behalf of respondent No.1. He also filed copy of Board Resolution in his favour. Both the parties submitted that there are chances of settlement and accused No.2 Sunil Kumar handed over a cheque bearing No. 277228 dated 25.11.2018 for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to the petitioner to show his bonafide and the same was received against acknowledgment by the petitioner / revisionist. The accused was admitted to bail and personal bond was accepted. The complainant was directed to comply with Section 208 Cr.P.C. within two weeks. It is further observed that as per submissions of parties that there is possibility of settlement, the matter was referred to Mediation Cell for 09.10.2018 at 2.00 p.m. and adjourned for report for 09.01.2019 which was typed as 09.01.2018 (due to bonafide typographical error, typed as 2018 instead of 2019). It is pertinent to mention here that the accused Sunil Kumar handed over a cheque details of which are mentioned above and received by the complainant. As per record, mediation referral form is signed by the complainant Deepak Sharma and his counsel Sh. Vipin Bhasker with mobile number and accused Sunil Kumar also signed it and mentioned his mobile number.
33. The Trial Court Record also shows that both the parties settled their dispute on 09.10.2018 and a mediation agreement entered between the parties and signed by the complainant, his CR No. 499/19 Page No.17of33 counsel Sh. Vipin Bhasker and accused No.2 Sunil Kumar on 09.10.2018. The matter was taken up on 09.01.2019 when the date of hearing was fixed by the Ld. Trial Court. The ld. Counsel for the complainant appeared and the complainant was exempted from personal appearance and accused Sunil Kumar was absent. It was apprised by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner to the Ld. Trial Court that the said cheque of Rs. 10 lacs got dishonoured on presentation. However, a call was received from the accused whereby he sought time to make the payment. Therefore, Ld. Trial Court adjourned the matter for appearance of parties for 18.04.2019.
34. On 18.04.2019, ld. Counsel for the complainant appeared, complainant was absent and accused Sunil Kumar was also absent, therefore NBWs were issued against him for 22.08.2019. In the meanwhile, as per order dated 12.07.2019, an application for cancellation of NBWs issued filed by the accused No. 4 Naresh Kumar Sharma and accused No. 6 Rishi Arora and the Ld. Trial Court cancelled the NBWS. Similarly, on 19.08.2019, an application filed on behalf of accused Sunil Kumar for cancellation of NBWs and the same were stayed till 22.08.2019. On 19.08.2019, another application for cancellation of NBWs was filed by accused No. 3 Kavita and the NBWs were cancelled. On 20.08.2019, another application for cancellation of NBWs was filed by accused No. 5 Sahansar Pal and the NBWs were cancelled.
35. On 22.08.2019, ld. Counsel for the complainant Sh. Vipin Bhasker appeared but the complainant did not appear. However, his application seeking exemption was allowed. As per order dated 22.08.2019, the accused appeared with Sh.
CR No. 499/19 Page No.18of33 Hari Om Giri, Advocate but no name of the accused was mentioned by the Ld. Trial Court. The said accused was admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond of Rs.1.5 lacs each and the complainant was directed to comply with Section 208 Cr.P.C. within two weeks. On the same day, an application under Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. filed alongwith a list of properties of the accused by the complainant. Ld. Trial Court put up the case for framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and filing of an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act and for arguments for 23.10.2019.
36. On 23.10.2019, reply was filed by the accused / respondent to the application under Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel for the accused apprised the Ld. Trial Court that mediation settlement arrived at on 09.10.2018 was not entered with the free consent of the accused and the accused has filed an affidavit to this effect. The Ld. Trial Court in view of this, sent an intimation to the Ld. Judge InCharge, Mediation Centre alongwith a copy of the said affidavit and a copy of mediation settlement and adjourned the matter for further proceedings on 03.12.2019.
37. As per record, in the meanwhile the petitioner / revisionist approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Crl. Rev. P. 1012/2019 & Crl. M. A. 36646- 47/2019 and order dated 23.09.2019, directed the Ld. Trial Court to follow the judgment of Dayawati (supra) and pass an appropriate order and the revision petition listed before the Hon'bl High Court of Delhi was dismissed as withdrawn.
CR No. 499/19 Page No.19of33
38. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 03.12.2019, dismissed the application of the petitioner / revisionist u/s. 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. and adjourned the matter for framing of notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. and filing of application u/s. 145(2) of the NI Act. Thereafter, as per record, vide order dated 23.12.2019 of my Ld. Predecessor, the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court were stayed.
39. It is pertinent to mention here that both the parties relied on the judgment of Dayawati (supra). Let us peruse the important observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said case. Hon'ble High Court while answering the reference devolve upon the genesis, modes and methods of dispute resolution available to the disputants. These include Lok Adalats (Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987); arbitration and conciliation (Parts I & III of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as section 89(a)&(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 incorporated on 1st of July 2002); judicial settlement and mediation (Section 89(c)&(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure). It is further observed that as far as criminal procedure are concerned, statutory recognition stands given to settlements between complainants/victims and accused persons under Section 320 Cr.P.C. which also provides the limits of permissibility and the procedure to be followed by the Court in the compounding of offences. It has further highlighted the provisions of Section 138, 143 and 147 of the NI Act. In addition to it, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. Section 29, 320, 357, 421 and 431 also highlighted.
CR No. 499/19 Page No.20of33
40. The Hon'ble High Court further mentioned the powers of Court under Section 477 Cr.P.C. to make rules. It is pertinent to mention here that the relevant extracts of the Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 framed by our own High Court of Delhi and Notification dated 11.08.2005 are reproduced. Further, it has highlighted the powers of Criminal Courts to refer the matters to the mediation. In para No. 57 of the said judgment, it is specifically observed that there is no bar for alternative dispute mechanism and observed as under :-
"57. Therefore, even though an express statutory provision enabling the criminal Court to refer the complainant and accused persons to alternate dispute redressal mechanisms has not been specifically provided by the Legislature, however, the Cr.P.C. does permit and recognize settlement without stipulating or restricting the process by which it may be reached. There is thus no bar to utilizing the alternate dispute mechanisms including arbitration, mediation, conciliation (recognized under Section 89 of CPC) for the purposes of settling disputes which are the subject matter of offences covered under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C."
41. It has further highlighted the process to be followed in reference to disputes in criminal law to mediation which is as under :-
"58. So what is the process to be followed in disputes under criminal law? So far as criminal matters are concerned, Section 477 of the Cr.P.C. enables the High Court to make rules regarding any other matter which is required to be prescribed. The Mediation and Conciliation Rules stand notified by the Delhi High Court in exercise of the rule making power under Part X of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 89(2)(d) of the C.P.C. as well as "all other powers enabling the High Court" in this behalf. The Rules therefore, clearly provide for mediation not only in civil suits, but also to "proceeding pending in the High Court of Delhi or in any Court subordinate to the High Court of Delhi".
So far as Delhi is concerned, these rules would apply to mediation in a matter referred by the Court concerned with a criminal case as well as proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act."
CR No. 499/19 Page No.21of33
42. It is further held as under :-
"67. It is quite apparent that proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act have a special character. They arise from a civil dispute relating to dishonouring to a cheque but may result in criminal consequence. Even though the statute is punitive in nature, however, its spirit, intendment and object is to provide compensation and ensure restitution as well which aspects must received priority over punishment. The proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are therefore, distinct from other criminal cases. It is well settled that they are really in the nature of a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones."
43. It is further highlighted that the permissibility of Section 138 of the NI Act is as under :-
"73. The above further reinforces the position that there is no legal prohibition upon a Court, seized of a complaint under NI Act, to encourage dispute resolution by recourse to the alternate dispute resolution methods including mediation. On the contrary, the guidelines laid down by the Court in Damodar S. Prabhu unequivocally encourage settlement. Mediation, as a mechanism for dispute resolution and arriving at a settlement automatically gets reinforced so far as a case under Section 138 of the NI act is concerned."
44. In detail the Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 have been highlighted, which is as under :-
"96. So far as mediation in Delhi is concerned, in the "Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004", Rule 20 is concerned with "confidentiality, disclosure and inadmissibility of information", Rule 21 mandates privacy in the mediation sessions while Rule 22 prescribes immunity from civil/criminal proceedings to the mediator for anything done bona fide or omitted to be done during the mediation proceedings."
45. It is further held as under :-
"104. Binding the parties to a settlement agreement entered into through a formal mediation process and being held accountable for honouring the same is really enforcing the legislative mandate in enacting Sections 138 and 147 of the NI Act i.e. to ensure an expeditious time bound remedy for CR No. 499/19 Page No.22of33 recovery of the cheque amounts. Breach of a lawful entered agreement would not only frustrate the parties to the mediation, but would be opposed to the spirit, intendment and purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act and would defeat the ends of justice. The courts cannot permit use of mediation as a tool to abuse judicial process.
105. There is no legal prohibition upon a criminal court seized of such complaint, to whom a mediated settlement is reported, from adopting the above procedure. Application of the above enunciation of law to a mediation arising out of a criminal case manifests that a settlement agreement would require to be in writing and signed by the parties or their counsels. The same has to be placed before the court which has to be satisfied that the agreement was lawful and consent of the parties was voluntary and not obtained because of any force, pressure or undue influence. Therefore, the court would record the statement of the parties or their authorized agents on oath affirming the settlement, its voluntariness and their undertaking to abide by it in the manner followed by the civil court when considering a settlement placed before it under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. The court would thereafter pass an appropriate order accepting the agreement, incorporating the terms of the settlement regarding payment under Section 147 of the NI Act and the undertakings of the parties. The court taking on record the settlement stands empowered to make the consequential and further direction to the respondent to pay the money in terms of the mediated settlement and also direct that the parties would remain bound by the terms thereof.
106. In having so proceeded, there is a satisfaction of the voluntariness and legality of the terms of the settlement of the court and acceptance of the terms thereof as well as a specific order in terms thereof. Consequently, the amount payable under the settlement, would become an amount payable under an order of the criminal court.
107. So far as the disputes beyond the subject matter of the litigation is concerned, upon the settlement receiving imprimatur of the court, such settlement would remain binding upon the parties and if so ordered, would be subject to the orders of the court."
CR No. 499/19 Page No.23of33
46. It is further highlighted that the consequences of breach of such settlement accepted by the Court which is as under :-
"108. The instant reference has resulted because of the failure of the court to have recorded the settlement and undertakings binding the accused person in the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act to abide by the settlement arrived at during mediation. There can be no manner of doubt that once a settlement is reported to the court and made the basis of seeking the court's indulgence, the parties ought not to be able to resile from such a position. So what is the remedy available to a complainant if the respondent commits breach of the mediation settlement and defaults in making the agreed payments?
109. Let us examine as to whether the legislature has provided any mechanism in the Cr.P.C. for recovery of monetary amounts.
110. We have extracted Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. above which provides the mechanism to recover fines, by issuing a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender and/or by issuing a warrant authorizing the realization of amounts as arrears of land revenue from movable and immovable property of the defaulter.
111. In the event of either party resiling from the agreed upon settlement which has received the imprimatur of the court, the party attempting to breach the settlement and undertaking cannot be permitted to avoid making the payment. Such party also should not be allowed to violate such undertaking given to the opposite side as well as the court.
112. In (2009) 6 SCC 652, Vijayan v. Sadanandan K. & Anr., it was held that Section 431 read with Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable to recovery of compensation ordered under Section 357(5).
114. In the event that a criminal court passes order accepting the mediated settlement between the parties and directs the accused to make payment in terms thereof, the settlement amount becomes payable under the order of the court. Such order having been passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, would be an order under Section 147 of the NI Act and Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
CR No. 499/19 Page No.24of33
115. In proceedings where settlement is permitted under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., it would be an order thereunder.
116. Where proceedings are disposed on settlement terms by the High Court, it would be an order passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Upon breach of such order and non- payment of the agreed amounts, the same may be recoverable in terms of Section 431 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C.
117. In addition, if the party has tendered an undertaking to abide by the terms of the agreement, which stands accepted by the court, in the event of breach of the undertaking, action and consequences under the Contempt of Courts Act could also follow."
47. The Hon'ble High Court in the following paragraphs answered the reference :-
"Question I : What is the legality of referral of a criminal compoundable case (such as on u/s 138 of the NI Act) to mediation?
It is legal to refer a criminal compoundable case as one under Section 138 of the NI Act to mediation.
Question II : Can the Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 formulated in exercise of powers under the CPC, be imported and applied in criminal cases? If not, how to fill the legal vacuum? Is there a need for separate rules framed in this regard (possibly u/s 477 of the CrPC)?
The Delhi Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 issued in exercise of the rule making power under Part-10 and Clause (d) of sub-section (ii) of Section 89 as well as all other powers enabling the High Court of Delhi to make such rules, applies to mediation arising out of civil as well as criminal cases.
Question III : In cases where the dispute has already been referred to mediation - What is the procedure to be followed thereafter? Is the matter to be disposed of taking the very mediated settlement agreement to be evidence of compounding of the case and dispose of the case, or the same is to be kept pending, awaiting compliance thereof (for example, when the payments are spread over a long period of time, as is usually the case in such settlement agreements)?
CR No. 499/19 Page No.25of33 In the context of reference of the parties, in a case arising under Section 138 of the NI Act, to mediation is concerned, the following procedure is required to be followed :
III (i) When the respondent first enters appearance in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, before proceeding further with the case, the Magistrate may proceed to record admission and denial of documents in accordance with Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., and if satisfied, at any stage before the complaint is taken up for hearing, there exist elements of settlement, the magistrate shall inquire from the parties if they are open to exploring possibility of an amicable resolution of the disputes.
III (ii) If the parties are so inclined, they should be informed by the court of the various mechanisms available to them by which they can arrive at such settlement including out of court settlement; referral to Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; referral to the court annexed mediation centre; as well as conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
III (iii) Once the parties have chosen the appropriate mechanism which they would be willing to use to resolve their disputes, the court should refer the parties to such forum while stipulating the prescribed time period, within which the matter should be negotiated (ideally a period of six weeks) and the next date of hearing when the case should be again placed before the concerned court to enable it to monitor the progress and outcome of such negotiations.
III (iv) In the event that the parties seek reference to mediation, the court should list the matter before the concerned mediation centre/mediator on a fixed date directing the presence of the parties/authorized representatives before the mediator on the said date.
III (v) If referred to mediation, the courts, as well as the mediators, should encourage parties to resolve their overall disputes, not confined to the case in which the reference is made or the subject matter of the criminal complaint which relates only to dishonouring of a particular cheque.
III (vi) The parties should endeavour to interact / discuss their individual resolutions/proposals with each other as well and facilitate as many interactions necessary for efficient resolution within the period granted by the court. The parties shall be CR No. 499/19 Page No.26of33 directed to appear before the mediator in a time bound manner keeping in view the time period fixed by the magistrate.
III (vii) In the event that all parties seek extension of time beyond the initial six week period, the magistrate may, after considering the progress of the mediation proceedings, in the interest of justice, grant extension of time to the parties for facilitating the settlement. For the purposes of such extension, the magistrate may call for an interim report from the mediator, however keeping in mind the confidentiality attached to the mediation process. Upon being satisfied that bona fide and sincere efforts for settlement were being made by the parties, the magistrate may fix a reasonable time period for the parties to appear before the mediator appointing a next date of hearing for a report on the progress in the mediation. Such time period would depend on the facts and circumstances and is best left to the discretion of the magistrate who would appoint the same keeping in view the best interest of both parties.
Contents of the settlement III (viii) If a settlement is reached during the mediation, the settlement agreement which is drawn-up must incorporate :
(a) a clear stipulation as to the amount which is agreed to be paid by the party;
(b) a clear and simple mechanism/method of payment and the manner and mode of payment;
(c) undertakings of all parties to abide and be bound by the terms of the settlement must be contained in the agreement to ensure that the parties comply with the terms agreed upon;
(d) a clear stipulation, if agreed upon, of the penalty which would ensure to the party if a default of the agreed terms is committed in addition to the consequences of the breach of the terms of the settlement;
(e) an unequivocal declaration that both parties have executed the agreement after understanding the terms of the settlement agreement as well as of the consequences of its breach;
(f) a stipulation regarding the voluntariness of the settlement and declaration that the executors of the settlement agreement were executing and signing the same without any kind of force, pressure and CR No. 499/19 Page No.27of33 undue influence.
III (ix) The mediator should forward a carefully executed settlement agreement duly signed by both parties along with his report to the court on the date fixed, when the parties or their authorized representatives would appear before the court.
Proceedings before the Court III (x) The magistrate would adopt a procedure akin to that followed by the civil court under Order XXIII of the C.P.C.
III (xi) The magistrate should record a statement on oath of the parties affirming the terms of the settlement; that it was entered into voluntarily, of the free will of the parties, after fully understanding the contents and implications thereof, affirming the contents of the agreement placed before the court; confirming their signatures thereon. A clear undertaking to abide by the terms of the settlement should also be recorded as a matter of abundant caution.
III (xii) A statement to the above effect may be obtained on affidavit. However, the magistrate must record a statement of the parties proving the affidavit and the settlement agreement on court record.
III (xiii) The magistrate should independently apply his judicial mind and satisfy himself that the settlement agreement is genuine, equitable, lawful, not opposed to public policy, voluntary and that there is no legal impediment in accepting the same.
III (xiv) Pursuant to recording of the statement of the parties, the magistrate should specifically accept the statement of the parties as well as their undertakings and hold them bound by the terms of the settlement terms entered into by and between them. This order should clearly stipulate that in the event of default by either party, the amount agreed to be paid in the settlement agreement will be recoverable in terms of Section 431 read with Section 421 of the Cr.P.C.
III (xv) Upon receiving a request from the complainant, that on account of the compromise vide the settlement agreement, it is withdrawing himself from prosecution, the matter has to be compounded. Such prayer of the complainant has to be accepted in keeping with the scheme of Section 147 of the NI Act. (Ref.:(2005) CriLJ 431, CR No. 499/19 Page No.28of33 Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel v. Dineshbhai Achalanand Rathi) At this point, the trial court should discharge/acquit the accused person, depending on the stage of the case. This procedure should be followed even where the settlement terms require implementation of the terms and payment over a period of time.
III (xvi) In the event that after various rounds of mediation, the parties conclude that the matter cannot be amicably resolved or settled, information to this effect should be placed before the magistrate who should proceed in that complaint on merits, as per the procedure prescribed by law.
III (xvii) The magistrate should ensure strict compliance with the guidelines and principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the pronouncement reported at (2010) 5 SCC 663, Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H and so far as the settlement at the later stage is concerned in (2014) 10 SCC 690 Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain.
III (xvii) We may also refer to a criminal case wherein there is an underlying civil dispute. While the parties may not be either permitted in law to compound the criminal case or may not be willing to compound the criminal case, they may be willing to explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement of their civil disputes. There is no legal prohibition to the parties seeking mediation so far as the underlying civil dispute is concerned. In case a settlement is reached, the principles laid down by us would apply to settlement of such underlying civil disputes as well.
In case reference in a criminal case is restricted to only an underlying civil dispute and a settlement is reached in mediation, the referring court could require the mediator to place such settlement in the civil litigation between the parties which would proceed in the matter in accordance with prescribed procedure.
Question IV : If the settlement in Mediation is not complied with - is the court required to proceed with the case for a trial on merits, or hold such a settlement agreement to be executable as a decree?
In case the mediation settlement accepted by the court as above is not complied with, the following procedure is required to be followed :
CR No. 499/19 Page No.29of33 IV (i) In the event of default or non-compliance or breach of the settlement agreement by the accused person, the magistrate would pass an order under Section 431 read with Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. to recover the amount agreed to be paid by the accused in the same manner as a fine would be recovered.
IV (ii) Additionally, for breach of the undertaking given to the magistrate/court, the court would take appropriate action permissible in law to enforce compliance with the undertaking as well as the orders of the court based thereon, including proceeding under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for violation thereof.
Question V : If the Mediated Settlement Agreement, by itself, is taken to be tantamount to a decree, then, how the same is to be executed? Is the complainant to be relegated to file an application for execution in a civil court? And if yes, what should be the appropriate orders with respect to the criminal complaint case at hand. What would be the effect of such a mediated settlement vis-a-vis the complaint case?
V (i) The settlement reached in mediation arising out of a criminal case does not tantamount to a decree by a civil court and cannot be executed in a civil court.
However, a settlement in mediation arising out of referral in a civil case by a civil court, can result in a decree upon compliance with the procedure under Order XXIII of the C.P.C. This can never be so in a mediation settlement arising out of a criminal case."
48. Now, coming to the present case and applying the principles laid down in the case of Dayawati (supra) discussed in detail hereinabove, as per Trial Court Record, the complaint case was filed by the petitioner on 04.10.2018 and after recording of pre-summoning evidence, summons were issued to accused No.1 M/s. Neo Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and accused No.2 Sunil Kumar. At that time, accused No.2 Sunil Kumar, Director appeared and filed his identity documents and Board of Resolution in his favour. The Ld. Trial Court on the submission of both the parties referred the matter for settlement to Mediation Cell for 09.10.2018 at 2.00 p.m. and the accused CR No. 499/19 Page No.30of33 No.2 Sunil Kumar also handed over a cheque of Rs. 10 lacs. As per Trial Court Record, Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on appearance of parties as per their settlement, recorded mediation settlement dated 09.10.2018 which is signed by both the parties. The Trial Court Record further shows that on the next date of hearing i.e. 18.04.2019, accused No.2 failed to appear and the cheque of Rs. 10 lacs which was given to the complainant also dishonoured. As per Dayawati (supra), a duty has been cast upon the Trial Court being Referral Court that when mediation agreement is placed before the Court, the Court shall satisfy that the agreement was lawful and consent of the parties was voluntary and not obtained because of any force, pressure or undue influence. Thereafter, the Court would record the statement of the parties or their authorized agents on oath affirming the settlement, its voluntariness and their undertaking to abide by it in the manner followed by the civil court when considering a settlement placed before it under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. The Court would thereafter pass an appropriate order accepting the agreement, incorporating the terms of the settlement regarding payment under Section 147 of the NI Act and the undertakings of the parties (emphasis para 105).
49. In the present case, the Ld. Trial Court had no occasion to examine the parties with regard to mediation agreement dated 09.10.2018 because accused No.2 Sunil Kumar did not appear and after one year filed an affidavit retracting from the mediation agreement. The stage before the ld. Trial Court did not reach where the Court would have recorded the statement of the parties with regard to voluntariness, lawfulness and consent of the parties with respect to the mediation agreement CR No. 499/19 Page No.31of33 dated 09.10.2018. The mediation agreement did not receive the imprimatur of the Court and has not been tied with legal thread of enforcement. In these circumstances, the application of the petitioner under Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. is pre-mature.
50. On the basis of above observation and discussion, the present revision petition is dismissed.
51. Before parting with the present case, it is essential to remind the Ld. Trial Court that the mediation process has been statutorily recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India (Salem Bar II), V (2005)SLT 653; and Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. vs. Cherian Varkey Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd., VI (2010) SLT 362. Lateron in catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of our own High Court, a legal sanctity has been attached to the mediation process.
52. It is further pertinent to mention here that the Ld. Trial Court being the Referral Court has to play a vital role being the originator of the process and also decision making to culminate mediation process into a legal enforceable settlement. Hence, the Ld. Trial Court in the role of Referral Court has to discharge judicial function right from the start of process and till final decision / enforcement. The Referral Court is also under judicial duty to see that no party shall be permitted to use mediation as a tool to abuse the process of law and waste the vital judicial time. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the accused abused the process of law and mediation process to frustrate and delay the trial. Lastly, the Ld. Trial Court CR No. 499/19 Page No.32of33 shall adhere to cardinal principle of mediation process and the principle of law laid down in the judgment of Dayawati (supra).
53. Trial Court record along-with copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information and record. Parties are directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 11.10.2022. Nothing contained herein shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending before Ld. Trial Court.
54. File of the revision petition be consigned to Record Digitally signed Room. SANJAY by SANJAY KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.09.28 22:50:34 +0530 Announced in the open Court ( SANJAY KUMAR) th on 27 September Principal District & Sessions Judge (West) 2022 Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi CR No. 499/19 Page No.33of33