Sandeep Gupta vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.
2018 Latest Caselaw 6965 Del

$~48

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.REV.P.1022/2018
       SANDEEP GUPTA                                ..... Petitioner
                   Through:     Mr.Rajbir Bansal, Advocate.
                          Versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.         ..... Respondents
                Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
                         Mr.Sita Ram Khandelwal, Authorised
                         representative
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                              ORDER

% 26.11.2018

Crl.M.A.47988/2018 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.REV.P.1022/2018 & CRL.M.B.1817/2018

1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State and Mr. Sita Ram Khandelwal, Authorised representative.

2. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 01.11.2018, whereby, the Appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the petitioner impugning order on conviction dated 06.08.2018 and order on sentence dated 30.08.2018 whereby petitioner has been held guilty of an offence

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Subject cheque is of Rs.1,17,000/-.

3. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,52,000/-. Trial Court noticed that Rs.17,000/- has already been paid. In default of payment of compensation, petitioner has to further undergo 30 days of imprisonment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the authorised representative, Mr.Sita Ram Khandelwal submit that parties have settled their disputes and petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all the claims of the respondent/complainant. A sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid today to Mr.Sita Ram Khandelwal. Balance amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be paid within a period of six months. The authorised representative submits that he has no objection to the compounding of the subject offence on receipt of the settlement amount.

5. Parties are directed to file an affidavit along with the Settlement terms.

6. Petitioner shall also deposit costs equivalent to 15% of the cheque amount with Delhi State Legal Services Authority in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayyad Babulal: (2010) 5 SCC 663.

7. Keeping in view the settlement, on petitioner furnishing a bail

bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, remaining sentence of the petitioner shall remain suspended till the next date of hearing.

8. List on 01.05.2019.

9. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 26, 2018 rk