[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Wazid Ali Khan & Anr vs Om Prakash Garg on 10 February, 2026
$~76
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10th February, 2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 88/2016
WAZID ALI KHAN & ANR.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nipun Joshi, Advocate.
versus
OM PRAKASH GARG
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anjul Sharma and Mr. Siddharth
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioners are accused in a complaint filed under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The abovesaid complaint was allowed, whereby the petitioners were
held guilty for committing offence under Section 138 vide judgment dated
05.10.2015 passed by the concerned Magisterial Court. The order on sentence
was passed on 20.10.2015, whereby petitioner No.1 herein was sentenced to
Simple Imprisonment (SI) for a period of six months and was directed to pay a
fine of Rs.84,70,000/- as compensation to the complainant-Mr. Om Prakash
Garg (respondent herein) under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and in default of
payment of such compensation, to undergo SI for further period of two
months.
3. The abovesaid orders were assailed by the petitioners by filing an
appeal before the Court of Sessions.
4. Such appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No.37/2015 and even
such appeal was dismissed by the learned Court of Sessions on 25.01.2016,
with no change in the order on sentence.
5. Petitioner No.1 i.e. Mr. Wazid Ali Khan, was directed to be taken in
custody so that he serves the sentence of imprisonment, as imposed upon him.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.
7. During the pendency of the present petition, the sentence of petitioner
No.1 was suspended, after he had already undergone sentence for a period of
one month approximately. He was also directed to deposit 1/3rd of the total
amount with the Registrar General of this Court.
8. Fact, however, remains that the parties were able to settle their disputes
and the respondent herein i.e. complainant had agreed to accept a sum of
Rs.61,24,000/- towards full and final settlement of all his claims involved in
the abovesaid complaint.
9. The cheque amount was also, reportedly, of Rs.61,24,000/-.
10. Though the petitioners had agreed to make payment of the abovesaid
amount latest by 30.04.2017, admittedly, they have taken much more time, in
clearing the abovesaid amount. In fact, it was, eventually, cleared in the year
2025 only.
11. The aspect with respect to compensation for delayed payment has
already been left open.
12. Both the sides have been heard with respect to compensation for the
delayed payment and both the parties have agreed to amicable resolution and
as per settlement, the petitioner has handed over cheques worth Rs.8,00,000/-
to the respondent herein, towards final compounding of the matter.
13. The photocopies of such cheques have been retained on record.
14. The petitioner has given undertaking to this Court that all such cheques
would be duly encased on its presentation and he also states that, in case, any
cheque is returned/dishonoured or unpaid for any reason whatsoever, he
would make himself liable for committing contempt of the Court.
15. All such cheques have been accepted by the respondent who submits
that the present petition may be disposed of, as amicably settled. His counsel,
however, submits that in case any cheque is returned/ dishonoured, liberty
may be granted to the respondent to revive the present proceedings.
16. The present petition is, accordingly disposed of in terms of the
abovesaid settlement and complaint in question stands compounded.
17. Respondent would be, however, at liberty to revive the present
proceedings in case, any such cheque is returned/dishonoured.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 10, 2026/ss/sa
