Delhi High Court
Ramesh Kakar vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 18 December, 2019
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Appl. No. 1229/2019 & Crl.M.A. 10465/2019,
Crl.M.A. 41557/2019
RAMESH KAKAR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajinder Pal Singh,
Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.M.Farooqui, Ld. APP
for the state with Insp. Satpal,
ATO and SI Raj Kumar PS:
Karol Bagh.
Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. D.K.Yati
and Mr. Ajay Khurana,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
ORDER
% 18.12.2019
Crl.M.A. 10465/2019 (Exemption).
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL M.A. 41557/2019 (Cancellation of interim protection).
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.p.C. by
complainant Ajay Khurana for cancellation of interim protection
granted to the petitioner Ramesh Kakar in FIR no. 537/2018, under
Section 420/34 IPC, PS Karol Bagh, Delhi.
2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld.
APP that Petitioner/accused Ramesh Kakar and his son Akhil
Kakar have been granted interim protection by this Court on the
ground of settlement dated 24th August, 2019. As per the said
settlement, Petitioner was to make the total payment of Rs.
1,50,00,000/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement
of all accounts, disputes and issues. It is submitted that petitioner
had issued cheque bearing no. 66482 dated 16.11.2019 amounting
to Rs. 30,00,000/- as first instalment in favour of the complainant
which on presentation dishonoured due to „Insufficient fund‟. In
these circumstances, it is prayed that the present application for
cancellation of interim protection of the petitioner/accused Ramesh
Kakar be dismissed in the interest of justice.
3. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused has
argued that interim protection should not be withdrawn as he was
granted the same on merits and not on the basis of compromise.
4. I have considered the rival submissions. I have asked Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner whether he intends to argue on the main
anticipatory bail application as well. He, however, submitted that
he will confine his arguments on the application for cancellation of
interim protection filed by the respondent.
5. Perusal of record reveals that vide order dated 31.05.2019,
petitioner/accused Ramesh Kakar was granted interim protection
and the relevant portion of order dated 31.05.2019 runs as under:-
"Status report has come to be filed.
Mr. Vivek Sood, learned senior counsel, on
instructions, submits that the parties are wishing
to amicably resolved the subject matter which
relates to a money transaction of Rs. 90 lakhs. It
also comes to be pointed out that the co-accused
was earlier referred to mediation on the joint
request and if the present applicant is also given
the indulgence and the matter is referred to
mediation on join request, there is every
likelihood that the matter may be resolved
amicably.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, on his part,
joins and submits that in all probability, the matter
would be resolved through mediation well before
the date fixed in the bail application of the co-
accused i.e. 02.08.2019.
List on 02.08.2019 when the bail application of
the co-accused is stated to be listed.
Till then, no coervice steps shall be taken against
the applicant and the applicant shall join the
investigation as and when called for by the IO.
Dasti."
6. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 02.08.2019 and
27.08.2019. The case was settled in Mediation and it is reflected in
the order dated 27.08.2019 and on the said ground, interim order
was continued. The said order runs as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
settlement has been arrived between the parties
for an amount of Rs. 1,00,50,000/-, and first
instalment is to be paid on 16.11.2019. Copy has
been given to learned APP.
Ld. APP for the State seeks time to verify the
same.
List on 08.01.2020.
Interim order to continue."
7. Perusal of record, thus, reveals that the matter was amicably
resolved vide settlement deed dated 24th August, 2019 arrived at
between complainant and petitioner Ramesh Kakar. However,
terms and conditions of the above settlement deed were not adhered
to. The relevant para 5 of the settlement deed runs as under:-
"that the first party along with his Advocate shall
appear before the Hon‟ble Delhi High court at the
time of the hearing/s on the anticipatory bail
applications of party of Second Part and his son
namely Akhil Kakar, bearing Bail Application no.
1229/2019 and Bail Application no. 990/2019,
pending before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court and
listed for hearing on 27.08.2019 and both the
parties will make joint request to Hon‟ble court to
extend the interim protection granted to party of
Second Part and his son namely Akhil Kakar on
their anticipatory bail applications for any date
after 16.11.2019 i.e. date meant for First
instalment of above settlement amount. On
clearance/payment of first instalment of Rs.
30,00,000/-; both the parties shall pray before the
hon‟ble High court to grant anticipatory bail to
Party to Second Part Mr. Ramesh Kakar and his
son namely Akhil Kakar in connection with FIR
No. 537/2018 under Section 420/34 IPC
registered at PS Karol Bagh."
8. Perusal of the record reveals that as per settlement deed
dated 24.08.2019 it was agreed that on clearance/payment of first
instalment of Rs. 30,00,000/-, both the parties shall pray to the
court to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner and his son Akhil
Kakar. Since the petitioner has failed to adhere to the terms and
condition of the settlement deed as the cheque amounting to Rs.
30,00,000/- given by petitioner to the complainant in lieu of
settlement has been dishonoured on account of „funds insufficient‟,
interim protection granted to the petitioner Ramesh Kakar stands
withdrawn.
9. Application is accordingly disposed of.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1229/2019
List on 08.01.2020.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
DECEMBER 18, 2019
Ak
