2019 (10) TMI 574 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition to Quash Judgment Overturned: Acquittal and Release Granted

Ram Lakhan Sharma Versus The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The High Court allowed the petition to quash the judgment passed by the District and Session Judge convicting the petitioner for non-repayment of a loan ... Dishonor of cheque - repayment of loan not made - present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner and respondent no.2/complainant has settled their disputes and pursuant to the settlement, the petitioner has paid an amount of ₹3 lacs which has been accepted by respondent no.2/complainant without any protest - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the poor financial condition of the petitioner, I hereby allow the present petition. As per the guidelines enshrined in decision rendered in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. [2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT], the petitioners are required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi. Issues:1. Quashing of judgment dated 04.10.2019 passed by the District and Session Judge2. Appeal against conviction and sentencing for non-repayment of loan under section 138 of NI Act3. Settlement between petitioner and complainant4. Application of guidelines for compounding the offenseAnalysis:1. The petitioner sought to quash the judgment dated 04.10.2019 passed by the District and Session Judge, along with other related judgments. The case involved a loan request of Rs. 4,00,000 by the petitioner for his daughter's marriage, leading to the issuance of a post-dated cheque that bounced. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner, imposing a fine and imprisonment. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed.2. The petitioner and the complainant reached a settlement where the petitioner paid Rs. 3,00,000, which was accepted without protest. The complainant, acknowledging the financial circumstances of the petitioner, forgave the remaining amount. The counsel for the complainant expressed no objection to the petition being allowed based on the settlement.3. Considering the settlement and the petitioner's poor financial condition, the High Court allowed the petition. Citing the guidelines from Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H, the Court waived off the additional costs usually required for compounding the offense. Consequently, the judgments convicting and sentencing the petitioner were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted from the case under section 138 of the NI Act.4. The Court directed the concerned Jail Superintendent to release the petitioner immediately, concluding the matter with an order for dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.