Delhi High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State ( Gnct Of Delhi) & Anr on 27 January, 2016
Author: Suresh Kait
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 27th January, 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 352/2015
PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Manawwar Naseem and
Mr. Akshit Gadhok, Advocates.
Versus
STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Satya Narayan, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr. Puneet Bajaj and
Mr. Manjeet Dahiya, Advocates for
Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl M.A. No.18036/2015
1. Vide the present application, the petitioner and the respondent No.2
jointly submit that the parties have settled the matter vide settlement dated
16.11.2015, therefore, the petition noted above be allowed.
2. Keeping in view the averments made in the instant application and
the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant
application is allowed.
3. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
CRL.REV.P. 352/2015
4. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the
impugned judgment and order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the Appellate
Court in Criminal Appeal No.01/2015 and the impugned judgment dated
28.11.2014 and order on sentence dated 04.12.2014 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.927/14.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties jointly state that
the matter has been settled between the parties before the Mediation
Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi, on 16.11.2015 and now no dispute
remains inter se them. Thus, the respondent No.2 has no objection if the
present petition is allowed.
6. Admittedly, the aforesaid case was filed under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and petitioner has been convicted
therein. Even appeal has been rejected by learned Appellate Court.
During pendency of matter, both parties compounded the offence before
Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 16.11.2015, though the
matter was pertaining to arbitration proceedings. Consequent to such
settlement, both parties moved joint application for settlement.
7. In Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. : AIR 2010 SC 1907,
the parties before the Supreme Court arrived at a settlement during the
pendency of the appeal before the said Court and sought compounding of
the offence as contemplated under Section 147 of the N.I. Act. Pursuant to
the said settlement, the appellant/accused also sought setting aside of his
conviction on the basis of the settlement. The Supreme Court thereupon
allowed the compounding of the offence and set aside the conviction of
the appellant.
8. It is important to mention here that the Supreme Court has framed
following guidelines with respect to compounding of such offences under
Section 138 NI Act at different stages:-
"(a) xxx xxx xxx.
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made
before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or
appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition
that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of
costs.
(d) xxx xxx xxx."
9. It was also clarified that any cost imposed in accordance with such
guidelines should be deposited with Legal Services Authority operating at
the level of the Court before which the compounding takes place. For
instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of the proceedings
before the High Court, the cost should be deposited with the State Legal
Services Authority.
10. Keeping in view the dictum of the Supreme Court in Damodar S.
Prabhu (supra) as well as the settlement arrived at between the parties,
the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act,
subject to his depositing 15% of all the three cheques amount by way of
costs with Delhi Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks
from today. Proof thereof shall be furnished by petitioner before learned
Trial Court.
11. It is noted that the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court vide
order dated 11.06.2015. Therefore, the petitioner is set free henceforth and
his bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.
12. Keeping in view the settlement and no objection of the petitioner, a
sum of Rs.1,80,000/- deposited before the learned Trial Court shall be
released in favour of the respondent No.2 on taking requisite steps.
Needless to state that furnishing of the cost receipt with DLSA by
petitioner, as indicated above, shall be a condition precedent for such
release amount of Rs.1,80,000/- by learned Trial Court.
13. In above terms, the present petition is allowed.
14. LCR be remitted back forthwith.
15. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 27, 2016
Sb/M/jg
