Delhi High Court
Anita Jain vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 22 December, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 22nd December, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. No.3024/2011
ANITA JAIN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Manjeet Singh
Ahluwalia, Adv with
petitioner in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 03.09.2015, this Court passed
following order:-
"1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction
thereby quashing of summoning order dated 14.12.2010
in Complaint Case No.18/M/11 falling under jurisdiction
of PS Bara Hindu Rao for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of the IPC and subsequent proceedings
arising thereto.
2. It is admitted that under arbitration proceedings two
different awards were passed in favour of respondent
No.2 and against petitioner herein. Till date, the award
amount in both the cases has not been paid by petitioner
in favour of respondent No.2.
3. In one of the cases, the total outstanding amount is
about Rs.57,85,023/- and in the other Rs.47,47,675/-.
Thus, in both the awards the total amount is about
Rs.1,05,32,699/-.
4. The petitioner had deposited an amount of
Rs.13,90,540/- by way of FDR with maturity value of
Rs.18,40,436/- as on 10.02.2012 before the Court of
learned Additional District Judge in cases bearing
No.M.Nos.29 and 30 of 2011. The said amount has
further earned interest and as on date the maturity value
is around Rs.24.00 Lac.
5. After intervention by this Court, the petitioner and
respondent No.2 have agreed that the petitioner shall
pay an amount of Rs.25.00 Lac in addition to above
amount, noted above to respondent No.2 for satisfaction
of both arbitral awards.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions,
has agreed thereto and submits that if the petitioner does
not pay the amount, as per terms fixed by this Court, the
concession extended by respondent No.2 towards
entitlement of arbitral awards stand revoked and
respondent No.2 will be a liberty to seek recovery
thereof, as per law.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner has agreed to pay an
amount of Rs.25.00 Lac in favour of respondent No.2 in
three EMIs. The first installment of Rs.10.00 Lac shall
be paid by her within a month from today; next
installment of Rs.10.00 Lac shall be paid within a month
thereafter; and remainder Rs.5.00 Lac shall be paid
within a month thereafter. Thus, the total amount of
Rs.25.00 Lac shall be paid by petitioner within three
months to respondent No.2.
8. I hereby make it clear that if petitioner fails to adhere
to time schedule of payment within three months, the
respondent No.2 shall be entitled to seek recovery of
arbitral awards against the petitioner, as per law.
9. On receipt of entire agreed amount, the respondent
No.2 shall withdraw all the cases against the petitioner.
10.Learned Trial Court is directed to release the FDR
amount being deposited by petitioner as mentioned
above, in favour of respondent No.2 on taking requisite
steps.
11.Since, the FDR is in the name of petitioner, she will
move the appropriate application to release the same
and after getting encashed the same upto date interest
amount shall be deposited by her in the account of
respondent No.2. The requisite steps shall be taken and
completed by her within two weeks from today."
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has paid an amount of
Rs.13,00,000/- by way of pay order on 31.10.2015 and Rs.7,00,000/- on
03.12.2015. The balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is being tendered by
petitioner by way of demand draft bearing No.576439 dated 21.12.2015
drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank in favour of respondent No.2, who has
accepted it without any objection.
3. Moreover, pursuant to afore noted order, the petitioner had taken
the steps before learned Trial Court and accordingly learned Trial Court
vide order dated 10.12.2015 directed that FDR be released in favour of
respondent No.2 Mr.Vijay Kumar Kapur upon completion of formalities
by petitioner Anita Jain @ Anita Sharma.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner, on instructions of petitioner who is
present in the Court submits that the concerned bank has prepared the
demand draft in the name of respondent No.2 and let him collect it from
the bank.
5. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is
compoundable and complaint case is pending with learned Trial Court.
The parties can very well approach learned Trial Court for compounding
the offence, but they settled the matter during the pendency of this
petition under Section 482 of the Cr P C.
6. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the
aforesaid settlement dated 03.09.2015 and undertake to remain bound by
the same.
7. In view of the above discussion, considering the settlement arrived
at between the parties and the fact that payment of agreed amount has
been made by petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that this matter
deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out
of the afore noted criminal complaint in question would be an exercise in
futility.
8. Consequently, the summoning order dated 14.12.2010 in Complaint
Case No.18/M/11 under jurisdiction of PS Bara Hindu Rao filed under
Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner and all proceedings
emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
9. I hereby make it clear that all the disputes regarding the payment
and parties in question are settled.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with no order as to
cost.
11. Order dasti.
Crl.M.A.Nos.10688/2011, 15330/2013, and 18658/2014
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 22, 2015
M
