Delhi High Court
Suraj Maurya vs Sameer Verma & Anr on 18 December, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 338/2018 and Crl.M.(B) No.630/2018
Date of Decision: 18.12.2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
SURAJ MAURYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Kharbanda, Advocate.
versus
SAMEER VERMA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI , J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section
397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner
seeking setting aside the impugned judgment on conviction dated
02.08.2017 and order on sentence dated 16.09.2017 passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.4991510/2016
whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section
138 N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- along
with litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant and in
default of payment of compensation, he was further directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order on sentence,
the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and vide
judgment dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act),
CBI-01, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA No.351/2017, the appeal filed by
the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts, as noted in the impugned judgment, are as follows:
"2. It is averred in the complaint that an agreement cum bayana
receipt (Ex.CW1/1) was executed between accused and the
complainant on 26.05.2005 whereby the accused agreed to sell
property bearing no. BE-170, Hari Nagar, New Delhi to the
complainant for a consideration of Rs.5,10,000/- out of which sum
of Rs.2,10,000/- was paid by the complainant on 26.05.2005 in
cash to the accused as earnest money. It is further averred in the
complaint that the balance was payable on or before 10.10.2005
subject to the transfer of the title of the above said property in the
favour of the complainant along with actual, peaceful, physical
and vacant possession of the shop and the remaining built up
portion in the said property. It is further stated that the accused
failed to hand over the possession and assured the complainant to
complete the deal at the earliest or otherwise to return the money
to the complainant with the compensation as agreed i.e. the double
of the earnest amount paid. It is further averred that ultimately
with the intervention of some common friends, the dispute was
amicably resolved and as per the settlement accused handed over
a cheque bearing no.355901 dated 14.06.2006 for an amount of
Rs.2,10,000/- drawn on Kangara Cooperative Bank Ltd.
(Ex.CW1/2) towards the discharge of the loan liability. It is
further averred that the cheque in question was presented for
encashment which got dishonoured on 27.06.200 with remarks
"funds insufficient" (Ex.CW1/3). Further, the Complainant also
sent a legal demand notice dated 15.07.2006 to the accused
(Ex.CW1/4). Upon the failure of the accused to make the payment
within 15 days, after the service of legal demand notice, the
present complaint was filed".
3. During the pendency of the revision petition, on the request of
the parties, they were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of an amicable
settlement of their dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have
arrived at an amicable settlement of their dispute before the "Delhi
High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre" vide Settlement
Agreement dated 19.09.2019.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that in terms of the
Settlement Agreement, entire settled amount of Rs.2,10,000/- has been
received by respondent No.2/complainant.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
a poor person and is the only bread earner in the family.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed
Babalal H. reported as (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 663 and
prayed that the cost @ 15% be reduced.
8. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the offence
under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner is permitted to be
compounded, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited
by the petitioner with the "Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee"
within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. The
petitioner stands acquitted.
9. Proof of deposit of costs be filed in the Court.
10. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application.
DASTI.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 18, 2019
'dc'
