Delhi High Court
Ravi Raj vs Sh. Simarpreet Singh on 13 May, 2019
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13.05.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 277/2019
RAVI RAJ ..... Petitioner
versus
SH. SIMARPREET SINGH ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vidhya Bhushan, Advocate with petitioner
in person.
For the Respondent: Respondent in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.10305/2019 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.REV.P. 277/2019 & Crl.M.(Bail) 456/2019 (for suspension of
sentence), Crl.M.A.10304/2019 (filed on behalf of applicant for
waiver of cost)
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 28.01.2019, whereby,
appeal of the appellant impugning judgment of conviction dated
28.11.2018 and order on sentence dated 21.12.2018 has been
dismissed.
2. Petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 138
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo 3 months
rigorous imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to
the respondent and in default to undergo 30 days simple
imprisonment. Subject Cheque was of Rs.2 lakhs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has settled with the respondent and the respondent has agreed to
accept the total amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in full and final settlement of
all his claims. He submits that the entire amount of Rs.2,25,000/- has
already been paid.
4. Respondent is present in Court in person and represented by
counsel. Respondent has also filed his affidavit stating that he has
received the entire amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and has no objection to
the compounding of the subject offence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
a Safai Karamchari and does not have sufficient means to pay the
entire cost of Rs. 30,000/- (being 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. He submits that Petitioner is not being permitted to join
duty because of these proceedings and is not receiving any salary.
6. Petitioner, who is present in Court in person, submits that he
has made an arrangement for Rs.15,000/- and undertakes to deposit
the same with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority by tomorrow
and the balance Rs.15,000/-, he undertakes to deposit on or before
21.05.2019. The undertaking is accepted.
7. In view of the settlement with the respondent and payment of
the entire settlement amount and also the undertaking given by the
petitioner that he shall deposit the costs of Rs.30,000/- with the Delhi
State Legal Services Authority in terms of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayyad Babulal: (2010) 5
SCC, in the manner as undertaken hereinabove, subject offence is
compounded. Petitioner is acquitted of the subject offence.
8. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
9. List for directions/reporting compliance on 22.05.2019.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
MAY 13, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
