Delhi High Court
Dr. Ravi Prakash vs State & Anr. on 12 March, 2018
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.03.2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 741/2017
DR. RAVI PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwin Vaish with Mr. Vinod
Pandey, Mr. Sekh Zakir Hussain and
Mr. Kunal Awana, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
Mr. Ravinder Zadav, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
12.03.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.4611/2018 (for early hearing)
For the reasons stated in the application and with the consent of
the parties, the date is advanced. The petition is taken up for hearing
today.
CRL.REV.P. 741/2017
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 25.09.2017, passed
by the Appellate Court rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against
judgment dated 08.08.2017 and Order on Sentence Dated 10.08.2017
holding the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act and directing the petitioner to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
compensation of Rs.26,50,000/- and in default to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have
settled their disputes and the respondent has agreed to take a total sum
of Rs.23,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all his claims. A sum
of Rs.15,00,000/- has been deposited with this Court. A sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- has already been paid to the respondent on 10.03.2018
and the balance sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has been paid to the respondent
in Court today in cash, the receipt of which is acknowledged by
respondent No. 2/the complainant, who is present in Court and is
identified by his counsel.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the
respondent No.2 has settled the disputes with the petitioner and is
agreeable to the compounding of the said offence under Section 147 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
4. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S.
Prabhu versus Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663, the petitioner
shall be liable to pay 15% of the cheque amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to
the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, which works out to
Rs.2,25,000/-.
5. Accordingly, it is directed that out of the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-
deposited by the petitioner with this Court, the Registry shall deposit a
sum of Rs.2,25,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority
and the balance amount of Rs.12,75,000/- along with interest accrued
on the fixed deposit, if any, be released in favour of the respondent
No.2.
6. The petitioner, who is present in Court, undertakes that within a
period of one week, he shall transfer the balance sum of Rs.2,25,000/-
to the account of respondent No.2. The undertaking is accepted.
7. In view of the above, the subject offence is compounded. The
petitioner is acquitted of the said offence.
8. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
March 12, 2018
st
