Delhi High Court
Suraj Bhan Kataria vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 16 May, 2019
$~31-38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.05.2019
+ CRL.REV.P.510/2017 & Crl.M.A.5365/2019
+ CRL.REV.P.511/2017 & Crl.M.A.5369/2019
+ CRL.REV.P.512/2017 & Crl.M.A.5363/2019
+ CRL.REV.P.513/2017 & Crl.M.A.5355/2019
+ CRL.REV.P.514/2017 & Crl.M.A.5351/2019
+ CRL.REV.P.515/2017 & Crl.M.A.5358/2019
+ CRL.REV.P.516/2017 & Crl.M.A.5353/2019
+ CRL.REV.P.517/2017 & Crl.M.A.5367/2019
SURAJ BHAN KATARIA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.R.K.Bachchan, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, Addl. PP for the State
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns judgments all dated 11.07.2017 whereby
appeals of the petitioner impugning orders on conviction all dated
08.08.2016 and orders on sentence dated 29.08.2016 have been
dismissed.
2. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of
six months and to pay compensation to the respondent no. 2, in default
to further undergo SI of one month in each of the case. In all the
cases, the petitioner was directed to pay a total compensation amount
of Rs. 43 lakhs (approx.). The amount of the subject cheques involved
is Rs. 31 lakhs.
3. The petitioner has settled the dispute with respondent no.2 for a
full and final settlement amount of Rs. 21,75,000/-. Petitioner had
paid the entire amount of Rs.21,75,000/- to respondent No.2.
4. On 30.08.2018, respondent No.2 was present in person and she
had accepted the settlement terms and had acknowledged that she had
received the entire settlement amount and had given her no objection
for compounding of the subject offence. She had undertaken to
withdraw the civil suit for recovery filed by her against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said civil
suit has already been withdrawn by her.
6. Application has been filed by the petitioner seeking waiver of
costs which are liable to be imposed in terms of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu versus Sayed Babalal H.,
(2010) 5 SCC 663. It is contended in the application and the additional
affidavit filed in support thereof that petitioner is living in a rented
accommodation with his wife and two children aged 9 years and 12
years, all of whom are dependent on the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the petitioner does not have a regular job and was
initially taking tuition classes and since he did not have enough
students had to close the same and is presently doing odd jobs on
daily wage basis.
7. It is submitted that all his funds and savings have been spent in
payment of the settlement amount. He is the sole bread earner of the
family and was constrained to settle to avoid incarceration, which
would have pushed his family into penury.
8. SHO, P.S.Tilak Nagar was directed to conduct an enquiry into
the financial status of the petitioner. Report dated 05.05.2019 has been
filed. The report has verified that petitioner does not have a regular
job and is only doing odd jobs. Further the report mentions that
petitioner was provided free legal aid by West District Legal Services
Authority as he did not have the money to engage a counsel.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was earlier
appointed by the South West District Legal Services Authority and is
doing the case pro bono for the petitioner.
10. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I am
satisfied that petitioner has made out an exceptional case for waiver of
costs.
11. In view of the settlement between the petitioner and the
respondent and payment of the settlement amount to the respondent,
the subject offence is compounded. Petitioner is acquitted of the said
offence.
12. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
13. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
MAY 16, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
rk
