Santosh vs The State & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6116 Del

$~65
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     DECIDED ON : 19th SEPTEMBER, 2016

+       CRL.REV.P.556/2016, CRL.M.B.1551/2016 & CRL.M.A.No.
        14605/2016
        SANTOSH                                           ..... Petitioner
                            Through :    Mr.D.K.Singh, Advocate with
                                         Mr.Pankaj, Advocate.
                            versus
        THE STATE & ANR.                                  ..... Respondents
                            Through :    Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP.
                                         Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the
                                         Complainant along with 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 09.08.2016 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.39/2016 by which conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 01.06.2016 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 three months and to pay compensation of `1,40,000/- to the complainant. Respondent No.2 / complainant has put appearance.

2. During the course of 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.

4. The petitioner 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 only nominal costs `10,000/- due to his undergoing custody for substantial period within three days before the Trial Court.

6. The revision petition stands disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court as well as to the Superintendent Jail for necessary information and compliance.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 / tr