CRL.REV.P./565/2017 of DILEEP KUMAR Vs STATE & ANR
Parties
- DILEEP KUMAR (PETITIONER)
- STATE & ANR (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+CRL.REV.P. 565/2017, Crl. M.A. Nos. 12357-58/2017 & Crl. M.B.No. 1414/2017No. 1414/2017
DILEEP KUMAR..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Vikram Patralekh and Mr. SushilKumar Singh, Advs.Through:Mr. Vikram Patralekh and Mr. SushilKumar Singh, Advs.
versus
STATE & ANR..... RespondentsThrough: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the StateMr. T.R. Mittal, Director ofrespondent no. 2 in person.Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the StateMr. T.R. Mittal, Director ofrespondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R R%02.08.2017
The Director of respondent no. 2 (complainant) submits that matterhas been settled between the petitioner and respondent no. 2, inasmuch assettled amount has already been paid by the petitioner vide demand draftfavouring respondent no. 2,that is, RamariaAssociatesPvt.Ltd.Photocopies of the receipt and demand draft have been placed on record asAnnexure P-5 (collectively).Respondent no. 2 has no objection in caseoffence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“theAct”, for short) is compounded. In view of the settlement arrived at between
the petitioner and respondent no. 2, offence under Section 138 of the Act is
permitted to be compounded. Petitioner is acquitted.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous applications
are disposed of as infructuous. Dasti.
AUGUST 02, 2017rb
A.K. PATHAK, J.