High CourtsSingle Bench

Madan Lala vs State & Anr

Delhi High Court · Decided on 21 February 2018 · Citation: (2018) 02 DEL CK 0528

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 738 Of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 473 words

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J

CRL.REV.P. 738/2017 & Crl.M.B.1723/2017(suspension of sentence)

1.

The petitioner impugns judgment dated 12.09.2017, whereby Appeal of the petitioner impugning judgment dated 25.07.2016 holding the petitioner

guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the Order on Sentence dated 31.08.2016 sentencing the petitioner to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.6 lakhs to the complainant and, in default, to further undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months, was rejected.

2.

Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have settled their disputes and petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the

complainant towards full and final settlement of all his claims. The subject cheque was of Rs.4 lakhs.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that a sum of Rs.1 lakh has been deposited with the Trial Court and Rs.4 lakhs has been deposited with

the Registry of this Court.

4.

Learned counsels for the parties submit that since the parties have settled, the offences may be compounded.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, under instructions from respondent No.2, who is present in person in Court today, submits that he

is agreeable to compounding of the offence and receiving the amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards full and final settlement of all his claims.

6.

On the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the respondent â€" complainant, the subject offence is compounded.

7.

In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu versus Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663, 15% of the cheque amount is to

be paid to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

8.

Accordingly, it is directed that the sum of Rs.1 lakh deposited with the Trial Court along with the accrued interest, if any, be released to the

respondent â€" complainant, by the Trial Court. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- representing 15% of the cheque amount be paid by the Registry of this court to

the Delhi State Legal Services Authority from the amount of Rs.4 lakhs deposited by the petitioner with this Court.

9.

The balance sum of Rs.3,40,000/- along with interest accrued on the deposit of Rs.4 lakhs be released by the Registry of this Court in favour of the

respondent/complainant. The petitioner shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- within a period of four weeks from today.

10.

The petitioner, who is present in person in Court today, undertakes that the said amount of Rs. 60,000/- shall be paid to the respondent within four

weeks. His undertaking is accepted.

11.

In view of the above, the subject offence is compounded and the petitioner is acquitted.

12.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

13.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.