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
21 paragraphs · 378 wordsSanjeev Sachdeva, J
The petitioner impugns judgment dated 05.03.2016, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner impugning order on conviction dated 26.05.2015 and order
on sentence dated 03.06.2015 was rejected.
The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3
months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month. The subject complaint was with
regard to two cheques of Rs.49,500/-each.
The parties have settled their disputes. The petitioner had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.2,30,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of
all her claims. The sum of Rs.2,04,000/- had already been paid. The balance sum of Rs.26,000/- had been paid by the petitioner on 29.08.2018.
On 29.08.2018, the complainant/respondent No.2 was present in Court in person and also was represented by counsel. Respondent No.2
acknowledged the settlement and also the receipt of the entire amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and had stated that she had no objection to the compounding of
the subject offence. Original cheques issued by the petitioner were also returned by the respondent No.2.
On 29.08.2018, the petitioner had sought time to deposit cost equivalent to 15% of the cheque amount in terms of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal K, 2010(5) SCC 663 with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an original receipt of deposit of the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Services
Authority. Photocopy of the same is taken on record.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has settled the disputes with the respondent, paid the settlement amount and also deposited cost in terms of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the subject offence is compounded. The petitioner is acquitted of the subject offence.
The securities, furnished by the petitioner, as also the surety amount, furnished in the form of a fixed deposit in this Court, are discharged. The
original be returned to the petitioner in accordance with law.
The petition is allowed in the above terms.
Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.