Sunil Babbar v. Jagjeet Singh

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.835/2016 SUNIL BABBAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Suresh Sharma and Ms.K.Gayatri, Advocates with Ms.Ritika Babbar, wife of the petitioner.

versus JAGJEET SINGH ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Inderjeet Singh, son of the respondent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 26.12.2016 Crl.M.A.No.20303/2016 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application is disposed of.

CRL.REV.P.835/2016 1.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 15.12.2016 whereby the Criminal Appeal No.31/2015 preferred by him assailing his conviction under Section 138 NI Act and sentence awarded for the said offence vide judgment and order dated 06.07.2015 and 13.07.2015 respectively, has been dismissed by the appellate Court.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have compounded the matter vide compromise deed dated 20.12.2016 which has CRL.REV.P.835/2016

been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. He further submits that in this case the respondent/complainant is residing in United States of America and he has authorised his son Sh.Inderjeet Singh to represent him and enter into settlement on his behalf.

3.

Sh.Inderjeet Singh, son of respondent Sh.Jagjeet Singh is present and affirms the factum of settlement. Sh.Inderjeet Singh further submits that his father Sh.Jagjeet Singh, who is residing in United State of America has authorised him by executing a Power of Attorney in his favour which is placed in lower Court record, to represent him (Jagjeet Singh) in this case. He is also authorised by his father to enter into settlement on his behalf. He further submits that since the matter has been compounded, he does not want the petitioner to suffer any further.

4.

This is a case under Section 138 N.I. Act which is a compoundable offence. In view of offence being compounded, the petitioner is acquitted in the present case. He be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 5.

The revision petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall be bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise deed dated 20th December, 2016 and make the payment as per the settlement.

6.

A copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance of the order.

7.

As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master.

CRL.M.(B)2283/2016 Dismissed as infructuous.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

(Vacation Judge) DECEMBER 26, 2016/'st'

CRL.REV.P.835/2016