Delhi High Court
Praveen Gupta vs State & Anr. on 16 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 617, 262 (2019) DLT 19 (CN)(DEL)
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.04.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 87/2017
PRAVEEN GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Petitioner in person.
For the Respondents: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State.
Mr. Atul T.N., Advocate for respondent No.2 with
Mr. Sahil Arora, AR of the respondent No.2
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) CRL.REV.P. 87/2017 & Crl.M.A.8183/2019 (joint application for compounding of offence) & Crl.M.A.3276/2018 (filed on behalf of respondent No.2 for release of Rs.3 lakhs)
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 07.01.2017, whereby, appeal of the petitioner, impugning judgment dated 13.01.2015 and order on sentence dated 17.01.2015, was dismissed.
2. Petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo simple CRL.REV.P.87/2017 Page 1 of 4 imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
3. Subject cheque was of Rs.2,70,001/-.
4. Parties have settled their disputes. Respondent No.2 has agreed to accept a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/- in full and final settlement of all its claims with regard to subject cheque.
5. It is submitted by the parties that there are other proceedings pending between the parties inter alia with regard to other transactions and the subject settlement is without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties in those proceedings.
6. It is stated by the parties that a sum of Rs.1 lakh has been deposited by the petitioner before the Appellate Court and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been deposited with the registry of this Court. Amount deposited with the Registry has been kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit.
7. Office report dated 01.05.2017 shows that the date of maturity of the Fixed Deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- was 27.03.2017 and the maturity amount was Rs.2,14,372/-.
8. Parties have agreed that the out of the said amount of Rs.3 lakhs, deposited by the petitioner (i.e. Rs.1 lakh before the Appellate CRL.REV.P.87/2017 Page 2 of 4 Court and Rs.2 lakhs before this Court), a sum of Rs,2,70,000/- be released to the petitioner and costs equivalent to 15% of the cheque amount (i.e. Rs. 40,500/-), in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu, Vs. Syed Babulal (2010) 5 SCC 663 be released in favour of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority and the balance amount, if any, be released in favour of the petitioner.
9. Mr. Sahil Arora, the authorised representative of the respondent No.2 and who is also the Director of the respondent No.2, is present in Court in person. He submits that he is duly authorised by way of a Resolution of the Board of Directors dated 09.02.2017 inter alia to settle the disputes with the petitioner. He submits that he has settled with the petitioner and has no objection to the compounding of the subject offence.
10. Accordingly, in view of the above, it is directed that the Appellate Court shall release the amount of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent No.2 complainant and interest accrued, if any, on the said amount would be released in favour of the petitioner. Likewise, Registry of this Court shall transfer the amount of Rs.40,500/- to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority as costs for compounding of the offence and out of the balance amount : Rs.1,70,000/- shall be released in favour of the respondent No.2 and the balance amount, if any, shall be paid to the petitioner.
11. Petitioner, who is present in Court in person, undertakes that in CRL.REV.P.87/2017 Page 3 of 4 case there is any shortfall, after payment of the costs, in the amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- to be paid to the respondent, he shall pay the same within two weeks.
12. In view of the above, subject offence is compounded. Impugned judgment dated 07.01.2017 as also order dated 13.01.2015 are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the offence.
13. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
14. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J APRIL 16, 2019 st CRL.REV.P.87/2017 Page 4 of 4