Mukesh Kumar vs State &Anr;
2016 Latest Caselaw 1155 Del

$-27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               DECIDED ON : 12thFEBRUARY, 2016

+            CRL.REV.P.117/2016 & CRL.M.B. 305/2016

      MUKESH KUMAR                                       ..... Petitioner.

                         Through :    Ms.Divya Attri, Advocate.


                         versus

      STATE &ANR.                                        ..... Respondents

                         Through :    Mr.Raghuvinder Varma, APP.
                                      Complainant in person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to

challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 08.02.2016 of

leaned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.134/2016 by which conviction and

sentence recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment

dated 01.06.2015 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was

upheld. The Trial Court had convicted the petitioner under Section 138

Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for one

month and to pay compensation of `1,30,000/- to the complainant.

Respondent No.2 / complainant has put appearance.

2. During the course or arguments, it is informed by both the

parties that the matter has been settled and the settled amount has been

paid to the respondent No.2 / complainant. I have enquired from the

complainant present in the Court whether he has settled the dispute with

the petitioner amicably without any fear or pressure and has received the

settled amount. The complainant / respondent No.2 has informed that the

matter has been settled by him with the petitioner without any fear or

pressure and the settled amount has been received by him. He has no

objection to the disposal of the revision petition as settled / compounded.

3. Since the dispute between the parties has been settled

amicably and the payment pursuant to the settlement has been received by

the complainant, the revision petition stands disposed of as settled /

compounded. An application was also moved to this effect before the

Trial Court on 09.02.2016.

4. The respondent No.2/ complainant is acquitted of the charge.

He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other

case.

5. Since the matter has been settled at the revisional stage, the

petitioner is directed to deposit costs `20,000/- within two weeks before

the Trial Court.

6. The revision petition stands disposed of. Pending application

also stands disposed of. Copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court as

well as to the Superintendent Jail for necessary information and

compliance.

7.            'Dasti.'



                                                    (S.P.GARG)
                                                      JUDGE

FEBRUARY           12, 2016 / tr