← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.REV.P./117/2016

Mukesh Kumar v. State & ANR

2016-02-12Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S.P.Garg3 pages

$-27 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

DECIDED ON : 12thFEBRUARY, 2016 + CRL.REV.P.117/2016 & CRL.M.B. 305/2016 MUKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner.

Through :

Ms.Divya Attri, Advocate.

versus STATE &ANR.

..... Respondents Through :

Mr.Raghuvinder Varma, APP.

Complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J. (Oral) 1.

Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 08.02.2016 of leaned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.134/2016 by which conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 01.06.2015 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld. The Trial Court had convicted the petitioner under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for one

month and to pay compensation of `1,30,000/- to the complainant. Respondent No.2 / complainant has put appearance. 2.

During the course or arguments, it is informed by both the parties that the matter has been settled and the settled amount has been paid to the respondent No.2 / complainant. I have enquired from the complainant present in the Court whether he has settled the dispute with the petitioner amicably without any fear or pressure and has received the settled amount. The complainant / respondent No.2 has informed that the matter has been settled by him with the petitioner without any fear or pressure and the settled amount has been received by him. He has no objection to the disposal of the revision petition as settled / compounded. 3.

Since the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and the payment pursuant to the settlement has been received by the complainant, the revision petition stands disposed of as settled / compounded. An application was also moved to this effect before the Trial Court on 09.02.2016.

4.

The respondent No.2/ complainant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

5.

Since the matter has been settled at the revisional stage, the petitioner is directed to deposit costs `20,000/- within two weeks before the Trial Court.

6.

The revision petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. Copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court as well as to the Superintendent Jail for necessary information and compliance.

7.

'Dasti.'

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 12, 2016 / tr