$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Appl. No. 1229/2019 & Crl.M.A. 10465/2019,
Crl.M.A. 41557/2019
RAMESH KAKAR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajinder Pal Singh,
Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.M.Farooqui, Ld. APP
for the state with Insp. Satpal,
ATO and SI Raj Kumar PS:
Karol Bagh.
Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. D.K.Yati
and Mr. Ajay Khurana,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
ORDER
% 18.12.2019 Crl.M.A. 10465/2019 (Exemption).
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL M.A. 41557/2019 (Cancellation of interim protection). Bail Appl. No. 1229/2019 Page 1 of 6
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.p.C. by complainant Ajay Khurana for cancellation of interim protection granted to the petitioner Ramesh Kakar in FIR no. 537/2018, under Section 420/34 IPC, PS Karol Bagh, Delhi.
2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. APP that Petitioner/accused Ramesh Kakar and his son Akhil Kakar have been granted interim protection by this Court on the ground of settlement dated 24th August, 2019. As per the said settlement, Petitioner was to make the total payment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement of all accounts, disputes and issues. It is submitted that petitioner had issued cheque bearing no. 66482 dated 16.11.2019 amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- as first instalment in favour of the complainant which on presentation dishonoured due to „Insufficient fund‟. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the present application for cancellation of interim protection of the petitioner/accused Ramesh Kakar be dismissed in the interest of justice. Bail Appl. No. 1229/2019 Page 2 of 6
3. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused has argued that interim protection should not be withdrawn as he was granted the same on merits and not on the basis of compromise.
4. I have considered the rival submissions. I have asked Ld. Counsel for the petitioner whether he intends to argue on the main anticipatory bail application as well. He, however, submitted that he will confine his arguments on the application for cancellation of interim protection filed by the respondent.
5. Perusal of record reveals that vide order dated 31.05.2019, petitioner/accused Ramesh Kakar was granted interim protection and the relevant portion of order dated 31.05.2019 runs as under:-
"Status report has come to be filed. Mr. Vivek Sood, learned senior counsel, on instructions, submits that the parties are wishing to amicably resolved the subject matter which relates to a money transaction of Rs. 90 lakhs. It also comes to be pointed out that the co-accused was earlier referred to mediation on the joint request and if the present applicant is also given the indulgence and the matter is referred to mediation on join request, there is every likelihood that the matter may be resolved amicably.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, on his part, joins and submits that in all probability, the matter would be resolved through mediation well before Bail Appl. No. 1229/2019 Page 3 of 6 the date fixed in the bail application of the co- accused i.e. 02.08.2019.
List on 02.08.2019 when the bail application of the co-accused is stated to be listed. Till then, no coervice steps shall be taken against the applicant and the applicant shall join the investigation as and when called for by the IO. Dasti."
6. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 02.08.2019 and 27.08.2019. The case was settled in Mediation and it is reflected in the order dated 27.08.2019 and on the said ground, interim order was continued. The said order runs as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that settlement has been arrived between the parties for an amount of Rs. 1,00,50,000/-, and first instalment is to be paid on 16.11.2019. Copy has been given to learned APP.
Ld. APP for the State seeks time to verify the same.
List on 08.01.2020.
Interim order to continue."
7. Perusal of record, thus, reveals that the matter was amicably resolved vide settlement deed dated 24th August, 2019 arrived at between complainant and petitioner Ramesh Kakar. However, terms and conditions of the above settlement deed were not adhered to. The relevant para 5 of the settlement deed runs as under:- Bail Appl. No. 1229/2019 Page 4 of 6
"that the first party along with his Advocate shall appear before the Hon‟ble Delhi High court at the time of the hearing/s on the anticipatory bail applications of party of Second Part and his son namely Akhil Kakar, bearing Bail Application no. 1229/2019 and Bail Application no. 990/2019, pending before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court and listed for hearing on 27.08.2019 and both the parties will make joint request to Hon‟ble court to extend the interim protection granted to party of Second Part and his son namely Akhil Kakar on their anticipatory bail applications for any date after 16.11.2019 i.e. date meant for First instalment of above settlement amount. On clearance/payment of first instalment of Rs. 30,00,000/-; both the parties shall pray before the hon‟ble High court to grant anticipatory bail to Party to Second Part Mr. Ramesh Kakar and his son namely Akhil Kakar in connection with FIR No. 537/2018 under Section 420/34 IPC registered at PS Karol Bagh."
8. Perusal of the record reveals that as per settlement deed dated 24.08.2019 it was agreed that on clearance/payment of first instalment of Rs. 30,00,000/-, both the parties shall pray to the court to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner and his son Akhil Kakar. Since the petitioner has failed to adhere to the terms and condition of the settlement deed as the cheque amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- given by petitioner to the complainant in lieu of settlement has been dishonoured on account of „funds insufficient‟, Bail Appl. No. 1229/2019 Page 5 of 6 interim protection granted to the petitioner Ramesh Kakar stands withdrawn.
9. Application is accordingly disposed of.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1229/2019 List on 08.01.2020.
BRIJESH SETHI, J DECEMBER 18, 2019 Ak Bail Appl. No. 1229/2019 Page 6 of 6