Ashok Gupta v. Murty Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

ORDER %

30.05.2013 Page 1 Cr1. Rev. P. No. 307/2013 I' Cr1. Rev. P.No.306/2013 & Crl.M.B.No.1045/2013 Cr1. Rev. P.No.307/2013 & Crl.M.B.No.1046/2013 It is evident from the order of 22'' May, 2013 that the afore-captioned petitions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were entertained on the quantum of sentence alone. Copy of Settlement Deed of 27th May, 2013 has been placed on record to show that the subject matter of these two complaints has been settled with the first respondent, who is the complainant in the afore-captioned two petitions. Mr. Akshay Malik, Advocate, appears for respondent No.1/complainant and states on instructions that the Settlement Deed of 27th May, 2013 is acceptable and that the twelve post dated cheques, details of which have been given in paragraphs No. 4 and 7 of Settlement Deed of 27th May, 2013, have been accepted by respondent No.1/complainant and subject to their encashment, the sentence awarded to petitioner can be set aside. Learned counsel for petitioner on instructions undertakes that the twelve post dated cheques, as referred to in paragraphs No. 4 and 7 of Settlement Deed of 271J May, 2013 shall be honoured and in case of default suitable sentence can be awarded to petitioner. In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest ofjustice Page 2 Cr!. Rev. P. No. 307/2013 to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer, and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." Subject to petitioner furnishing an undertaking by way of an affidavit to this Court within six weeks, the sentence imposed upon petitioner is set aside with the rider that in case petitioner defaults in performance of the Settlement Deed of 27th May, 2013, then he shall be I liable to receive an appropriate sentence. The above captioned petitions and applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms. JUDGE MAY 30, 2013 r Page 3 Cr!. Rev. P. No. 307/2013

$4 & 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 306/2013 ASHOK GUPTA Petitioner Through: Mr. Anindya Maihotra, Advocate versus MURTY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Malik, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State + CRL.REV.P. 307/2013 ASHOK GUPTA Petitioner Through: Mr. Anindya Maihotra, Advocate versus MURTY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Malik, Advocate for Respondent No.1 q Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR