Deepak Goyal v. State

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DEEPAK GOYAL ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Vikram Agarwal, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by:

Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with SI Puneet Grewal, PS K.N. Katju Marg.

Mr. Sourabh Tyagi, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 14.11.2018 Crl.M.A. 11427/2017 By this application the complainant seeks leave to deposit the keys of the premises I-5/50 Sector 16, Second Floor, Rohini, Delhi-85 handed over by the complainant in FIR No. 707/2014 registered at PS K.N. Katju Marg to the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Puneet Grewal. Leave granted. Application is disposed of. Petitioner would be entitled to receive the keys as and when the liabilities are satisfied by the petitioner. Crl.M.A. 14972/2016 (Extension of time for payment) and Crl.M.A. 33987/2018 (directions by the complainant) In the bail application the petitioner has sought anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 707/2014 registered under Sections 120B/420/468/471/174A IPC at PS K.N. Katju Marg. During the pendency of the present bail application the parties entered into a settlement and it was first informed that

the informant who is the Special Power of Attorney is agreeing to accept a sum of ₹13 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the case. Vide order dated 27th April, 2017 this Court noted that the Special Power of Attorney had already been cancelled.

Parties were therefore referred to mediation for holistic settlement as desired by them and the said mediation ended as a non-starter. On 19th March, 2018 the petitioner, who was is in custody, was produced in Court and as per his desire he was directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. On 17th May 2018 this Court noted that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the petitioner was required to pay a sum of ₹13 lakhs in full and final settlement of all the claims of the victim Kaushalya Devi who initially filed the FIR through her Power of Attorney Anshul Sharma and is now represented by her Power of Attorney Vinod Modi.

Since anticipatory bail application of the petitioner had already been disposed of on 5th September, 2016, this Court directed that till the next date of hearing no coercive action be taken against the petitioner and listed the matter on 8th October, 2018. On 8th October, 2018 learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he could not pay the balance amount of ₹13 lakhs and sought one more month to make the payment. Thus, the application was renotified for today i.e. 14th November, 2018 with a clarification that no further extension of time will be granted for making payment. Interim order was continued till date.

Today again learned counsel for the petitioner seeks further time to make the payment.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is delaying in making the payments and not honouring the settlement which was the very basis of grant of interim protection, this Court finds no ground to further extend the interim protection granted to the petitioner. Crl.M.A. 14972/2016 is dismissed. Crl.M.A. 33987/2018 is disposed of.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

NOVEMBER 14, 2018 'ga'