Delhi High Court
Joginder Singh vs Vishnu Dutt & Anr. on 29 September, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.A. 11695/2011 & CRL.REV.P. 412/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 29th September,2011
JOGINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Vikas Mahaja, Adv.
versus
VISHNU DUTT & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Kumar Rajat, Adv. for R-
1/complainant.
Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
ORDER
% 29.09.2011
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide order dated 16.09.2011, the following order was
passed.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that vide judgment dated 27th April,
2011, the petitioner was held guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and vide order dated
29th April, 2011, the petitioner was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and compensation of Rs.65,000/- was
granted in favour of the complainant to be paid
by the convict/appellant within one month from
the said order.
2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
on the even date, considered the application
under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure being filed on behalf of the convict for
suspension of sentence to file an appeal against
the order. In the aforesaid order, the sentence of
the petitioner was suspended for a period of one
month from that date to enable him to do the
needful and till then, the learned MM has
admitted the convict on bail till 30th May, 2011.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed
the appeal before the Sessions Court. Vide
judgment dated 9th September, 2011 the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge has modified the sentence
from one year to three months and the amount of
compensation was enhanced from s.65,000/- to
Rs.90,000/-. During the pendency of the appeal,
the petitioner has deposited Rs.48,000/-; proof of
the same is on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner is already in
jail since 9th September, 2011 and he is ready to
pay the remaining amount and wants to settle the
issue with the respondent".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
balance amount of Rs.42,000/- as agreed on the last date of
hearing has already been given to respondent No.
1/Complainant. The respondent No. 1 had accepted the
same without any protest.
3. Respondent No. 1/complainant is personally present in
the court today and submits that he has settled his disputes
and all the issues qua the complaint filed before the learned
trial Judge bearing CCNo. 567/2009 with the petitioner.
4. He further submits that in view of the settlement, he
does not want to pursue the case further.
5. Vide judgment dated 27.04.2011, the petitioner was
held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections
138/142 of NI Act and vide order on sentence dated
29.04.2011, he was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of
one year and compensation for an amount of Rs.65,000/- to
be given by the petitioner in favour of
complainant/respondent No.1.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence
passed by learned MM, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before learned Additional Sessions Judge, and vide order
dated 09.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, the order on sentence dated 29.04.2011 was modified
and the sentence of the petitioner was reduced to SI for a
period of 3 months and the compensation amount was
enhanced from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.90,000/-.
7. It is submitted that under Section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C., the
complaint stands satisfied which may lead to acquittal of
petitioner, therefore, it is requested that the petitioner be
acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections
138/142 NI Act.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant
submits that the amount of Rs.48,000/- out of the total
settled amount of Rs.90,000/- were deposited in the trial
court, and that amount may be directed to be released in
favour of respondent No. 1.
9. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and
in view of the statement made by respondent No. 1, I acquit
the petitioner from the charges under Sections 138/142 NI
Act, as the complaint has been compromised.
10. The petitioner be released from Jail, if not warranted in
any other case.
11. The Bail Bonds and Surety bonds of the petitioner
stands cancelled.
12. The surety stands discharged.
13. I direct that the amount of Rs.48,000/- deposited in the
trial court out of the total settled amount of Rs.90,000/- be
released in favour of respondent No. 1/complainant.
14. Criminal Revision Petition No. 412/2011 & Criminal
M.A. 11695/2011 are disposed of in the above terms.
15. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail
Authority for information and compliance.
SURESH KAIT,J
SEPTEMBER 29, 2011
j
