Delhi High Court
Ram Lakhan Sharma vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 14 October, 2019
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14.10.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 5210/2019
RAM LAKHAN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Pramod Tyagi, Adv.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State.
Mr.Farahim Khan, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. 38046/2019
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
Crl.M.C.5210/2019 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1791/2019
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction to quash/ set-
aside the impugned Judgment dated 04.10.2019, passed by Sh. A.K.
Mendiratta, Ld. District and Session Judge, North-East, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi, in C.A. Bearing No. 70/2019, title as "Ram Lakhan Sharma
Versus Rambeer Singh" and judgment dated 06.06.2019 and order on
sentence dated 28.06.2019, passed by Sh. Devender Kumar Garg, Ld. CMM,
North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in complaint case bearing no.
179/2016, under section 138 of NI Act.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/convict requested the
complainant/respondent No.2 for loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- to solemnise the
marriage of his daughter. He could not repay the loan and in discharge of
his legal liability, the petitioner/convict issued one post dated cheque
bearing no.000017, dated 20.07.2016, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi for Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of complainant/respondent No.2.
The petitioner also executed an acknowledgement of aforesaid loan
transaction and handed over to respondent No.2, the said cheque was
presented for encashment before the bank of respondent No.2 and the same
was returned unpaid with remarks "Payment stopped by drawer". Thereafter,
after completion of statutory requirement, respondent no.2 filed complaint
and after trial, the Ld. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to
pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from
21.07.2016. He further suffered SI for 6 months and a sum of Rs.5,000/-
and imposed litigation charges of Rs.5,000/- vide order dated 28.06.2019.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner appealed before the Appellate Court
and the same was also dismissed on 04.10.2019.
6. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner
and respondent no.2/complainant has settled their disputes and pursuant to
the settlement, the petitioner has paid an amount of ₹3 lacs which has been
accepted by respondent no.2/complainant without any protest.
7. The complainant/respondent no.2 is present in person with her
counsel and has produced Voter I-Card issued by Election Commission of
India on 04.02.2010 bearing No.XCNO266142 (original seen and returned)
8. Counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the petitioner has taken loan
to perform marriage of his daughter, therefore, he being very poor person
could not repay the amount and respondent no.2 has good means in the
society, therefore, he has just forgiven him and accepted an amount of ₹3
lacs and submits that he has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
9. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the
poor financial condition of the petitioner, I hereby allow the present petition.
10. In addition to above, as per the guidelines enshrined in decision
rendered in Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H, (2010) 5 SCC 663 by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners are required to pay 10% of the
cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the
Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi.
11. However, keeping in view the poor financial condition of the
petitioner, I hereby waive off the cost.
12. Consequently, the judgment dated 04.10.2019, 06.06.2019 and
sentence order dated 28.06.2019 are hereby set aside.
13. Accordingly, the petitioner is acquitted from case complaint bearing
no.179/2016 filed under section 138 of the NI Act.
14. I hereby direct the concerned Jail Superintendent to release the
petitioner forthwith.
15. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 14, 2019
ab
