← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.REV.P./72/2016

Kuldeep Sharma v. Harbans Singh Maggo

2016-02-29Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Pratibha Rani2 pages

$~29 & 30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 72/2016 KULDEEP SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms.Neha Garg & Mr.Ashok Srivastav, Advocates with petitioner in person versus HARBANS SINGH MAGGO ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Rao Balvir Singh, Advocate with respondent in person AND + CRL.REV.P. 73/2016 KULDEEP SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms.Neha Garg & Mr.Ashok Srivastav, Advocates with petitioner in person versus HARBANS SINGH MAGGO ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Rao Balvir Singh, Advocate with respondent in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 29.02.2016 1.

By filing these two revision petitions, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 10.12.2015 whereby the appeals bearing CA Nos.54/2015 & 55/2015 preferred by him impugning the conviction and sentence awarded to him in complaint cases bearing CC Nos.1764/1/07 & 1711/1/07 for committing the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act, have been

dismissed by learned Appellate Court.

2.

On the last date of hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties had settled the dispute amicably and in terms of settlement as the petitioner was required to pay a total amount of Rs.1,60,000/- to the respondent for both the cases. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that first instalment had already been paid to the respondent and second instalment will be paid by the petitioner after his release from the Jail.

3.

Vide order dated 29th January, 2016 the substantive sentence of the petitioner was suspended till today i.e. 29th February, 2016. 4.

Today petitioner is present in person alongwith his counsel. 5.

Respondent is also present in person and submits that he has received the complete payment from the petitioner as per the settlement arrived at between them and he does not want any penal action against the petitioner. 6.

This is a case under Section 138 N.I. Act which is compoundable. In view of the offence being compounded, the petitioner is acquitted in these cases.

7.

The petitions stands disposed of.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

FEBRUARY 29, 2016 'pg'