Full Judgment Text
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 27 March, 2024
+ CRL.REV.P. 411/2024
DEVENDER SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nadeem Quareshi, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for
State/Respondent No. 1
Mr. Amit Yadav, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2 with Respondent
No. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CRL.M.A. 9339/2024 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just all exceptions.
CRL.M.A. 9340/2024 (condonation of delay)
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. Vali have no objection if
the delay is condoned without prejudice to their rights and contentions.
Delay is accordingly condoned.
CRL.M.A. 9341/2024 (u/s 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act for
compounding)
1. A revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with
Sections 401 & 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short NI Act ) against the petitioner herein.
Such complaint eventually resulted in conviction of the petitioner and in
relation to the present complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No. 9978/2016, he
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:27.03.2024
19:14:00
CRL.REV.P. 411/2024 1
was held guilty and convicted vide order dated 30.06.2023.
3. Order on sentence was passed by learned Trial Court on 25.08.2023
whereby he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months. Besides, he was also directed to pay compensation of double of the
cheque amount. Since the cheque amount was Rs. 45,000/-, he was directed
to deposit compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. It was also ordered that in default
of payment of said compensation, he would further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months.
4. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing appeal which was
registered as Criminal Appeal No. 177/2023. Said appeal was dismissed on
25.11.2023 and the quantum of sentence was also not disturbed/ interfered by
the learned Appellate Court.
5. Petitioner was taken into custody on 25.11.2023 itself and is reportedly
to be in custody since then.
6. Impugned order has been challenged on various grounds. It is, inter
alia , claimed that complainant did not mention about the loan amount in ITR
and, therefore, statutory presumption could not have been invoked.
7. Be that as it may, there is one significant development in the
interregnum.
8. When the petitioner was in judicial custody, his son Vishal Sharma
entered into settlement with complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) and such
settlement has been reduced in writing. Copy of settlement deed has been
attached as Annexure P-4.
9. We may also note that there were, in all, six complaints (including the
present one) filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 138 NI Act against the
petitioner. In all such six complaints, the cheque amount was identical i.e.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:27.03.2024
19:14:00
CRL.REV.P. 411/2024 2
Rs. 45,000/-. It is also admitted situation that similar sentence has been
given to the petitioner in the other five complaints/matters also and petitioner
has filed separate revision petitions challenging his conviction and sentence.
10. These revision petitions are Crl. Rev. P. 412/2024, Crl. Rev. P.
413/2024, Crl. Rev. P. 414/2024, Crl. Rev. P. 416/2024 & Crl. Rev. P.
418/2024.
11. Settlement deed is composite for all the six complaints and towards full
and final settlement, the complainant i.e. respondent no. 2 has already been
given a sum of Rs. 4,72,000/- which she has accepted without any pressure,
force, coercion and misrepresentation. Such settlement deed bears her
signatures as well.
12. She is present in Court and has reiterated the terms of the settlement
and states that she would have no objection if matter is compounded. Her
counsel Mr. Amit Yadav also identifies her and states that since matter has
been amicably settled, he would have no objection if the application moved
by the petitioner under Section 147 of NI Act is allowed and the revision
petition stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2023 and since settlement has
already taken place between the parties, in order to avoid any further
incarceration of the petitioner, matter has been taken up today for final
disposal.
14. Mr. Vali, who represents respondent no. 2, has very fairly stated that
since the matter is essentially between the two private parties and since they
have settled their dispute and the payment has also been reportedly made to
the complainant, he leaves it to the discretion of the Court to pass appropriate
order.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:27.03.2024
19:14:00
CRL.REV.P. 411/2024 3
15. I have gone through the contents of the application moved under
Section 147 of NI Act and also the terms and conditions as mentioned in
settlement deed (Annexure P-4) and there does not seem to exist any embargo
or prohibition which may persuade this Court to deny compounding.
16. Complainant has already received the entire amount of Rs. 4,72,000/-.
Out of the above, Rs. 3 lacs was paid to her by way of cheque and cheque
amount has already been realized and the amount has already been credited in
her account. She also states that she has received the balance amount of Rs.
1,72,000/- in cash.
17. Keeping in mind the contents of the settlement deed and the fact that
both the parties have amicably settled, application under Section 147 of NI
Act is allowed.
18. As a necessary corollary, since the matter has been permitted to be
compounded, such compounding shall have the effect of acquittal in terms of
Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C. and, therefore, petitioner is directed to be released
from jail forthwith if not required in any other case.
19. This Court is conscious of guidelines laid in Damodar S. Prabhu v.
Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663. In the present case, complaint was
filed way back in the year 2014 and the compounding has taken virtually after
one decade and in said case of Damodar S. Pabhu (supra) , certain guidelines
were issued and as per those specific guidelines, if the compounding takes
place in a revision before the High Court, the compounding may be allowed
on the condition that such accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of
cost. We are also mindful of the fact that in the same judgment, it is also
observed that the competent Courts can, of course, reduce the cost with regard
to the specific facts and circumstances of the case, while recording reasons in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:27.03.2024
19:14:00
CRL.REV.P. 411/2024 4
writing for such variance. Reference be also made to Madhya Pradesh
State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain & Anr. (2014) 10 SCC 690 .
20. Petitioner is having no other criminal antecedents except for present
complaint and the related five complaints.
21. Moreover, despite the fact that the matter has been settled, albeit,
belatedly, he is in custody since 25.11.2023 and, therefore, this Court finds it
to be a fit case where the cost needs to be reduced from 15% to 10%.
22. Resultantly, while permitting the compounding, the petitioner is also
directed to pay 10% of the cheque amount by way of cost. Such amount
comes to Rs. 4,500/- in the present complaint case. Same cost of Rs. 4,500/-
is also being directed to be deposited by him in the related complaints. Thus,
in all, he would be required to deposit a sum of Rs. 27,000/- with Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee. It is undertaken by learned counsel for the
petitioner that he would deposit the said amount today itself and would submit
the proof to the Court Master.
23. Let it be done.
24. A copy of this order be also sent to learned Trial Court.
25. A communication be sent to the Jail Superintendent along with copy of
order with direction to release the petitioner forthwith if not required in any
other case.
26. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
MANOJ JAIN, J
MARCH 27, 2024/ dr
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:27.03.2024
19:14:00
CRL.REV.P. 411/2024 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:27.03.2024
19:14:00