Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar vs Pawan Kumar & Ors. on 15 December, 2011
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No.2716/2011
Date of Decision : 15.12.2011
VINOD KUMAR ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sumit Sarna
Advocate
Versus
PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. ...... Respondent
Through: Complainant in
person.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner for issuance of
directions for the purpose of setting aside the
judgment dated 18.07.2011 and the order of sentence
dated 20.07.2011 passed by Sh.D.K.Jangala, learned
MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi and upheld by learned ASJ
Sh.Rakesh Tiwari vide order dated 02.08.2011.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
respondent Pawan Kumar had filed a complaint
Crl.M.C. No.2716/2011 Page 1 of 6
against the present petitioner u/s 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act on the ground that a cheque of
Rs.1,40,000/-, which was given by the
petitioner/accused to the respondent /complainant
was dishonored on presentation. After completing
necessary processes of law, the petitioner was put to
trial which resulted in the conviction of the petitioner.
The petitioner was convicted and was sentenced to
simple imprisonment for six months for an offence u/s
138 Negotiable Instruments Act and for the loss
suffered by the respondent/complainant he was
directed to compensate him by payment of
`2,10,000/- i.e. 1½ time of the cheque amount, within
a period of one month.
3. Since the petitioner failed to pay any amount
consequently he was remanded to judicial custody on
15.07.2011.
4. A revision petition against the said order was preferred
which was also dismissed as not maintainable, by
Sh.Rakesh Tiwari, learned ASJ on 02.08.2011.
Crl.M.C. No.2716/2011 Page 2 of 6
5. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed by the
petitioner wherein it has been stated that a
compromise has been arrived at with the
respondent/complainant as a consequence of which
the amount of `2,10,000/- has been paid to the
respondent/complainant vide two demand drafts
bearing Nos.992379 in the sum of `1,40,000/- and
992250 in the sum of `1,70,000/- both drawn on
Syndicate Bank, Punjabi Bagh. It has also been
agreed between the parties that once the amount
stands paid, the grievance of the
respondent/complainant would not survive and the
Court may pass an appropriate order acquitting the
accused.
6. A notice was issued to the respondent who filed the
reply and supported the case of the present petitioner.
Along with the reply, the memorandum of compromise
was also placed on record. The learned counsel for
the petitioner has identified the
respondent/complainant. The respondent/complainant
Crl.M.C. No.2716/2011 Page 3 of 6
has also stated that he has no objection to the
quashing of the order of sentence and the judgment of
conviction passed by the learned MM Sh.D.K.Jangala
and dismissal order of the learned ASJ in the Revision
Petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the case titled K.M.Ibrahim Vs.
K.P.Mohammed & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 276 to
contend that even at appellate stage parties to
an offence u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
can be permitted to compound the offence.
Reference has been made in this regard to
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
which reads as under:-
"147. Offences to be compoundable--
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every
offence punishable under this Act shall be
compoundable."
Crl.M.C. No.2716/2011 Page 4 of 6
9. It is contended that once the Court is informed about
the compromise between the parties, there is no
option except to set aside the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and I feel that as
the respondent/complainant and the present
petitioner/accused have entered into a settlement,
copy of which is placed on record and an amount of
`2,10,000/- has been paid towards full and final
satisfaction of the entire claim of the
respondent/complainant, necessarily this Court has no
other option but to set aside the order of conviction
dated 18.07.2011 and the order of sentence dated
20.07.2011 and acquit the accused/petitioner.
11. The order of the learned ASJ though is
inconsequential, as it has stated that the revision
against the order of conviction and the sentence is not
maintainable, however, without going into the merits
of the same, it is also set aside.
Crl.M.C. No.2716/2011 Page 5 of 6
12. Accordingly, the judgment dated 18.7.2011 and the
order of sentence dated 20.7.2011 passed by the
learned MM are set aside and the appellant is treated
to have been acquitted. Accordingly, release order of
the petitioner be issued. A copy be sent to the Suptd.
Central Jail.
13. Petition stands disposed of.
14. Dasti.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 15, 2011
mr
