Point of Law : Offences by companies - Cheque dishonoured - Mediation settlement - It is settled law and even otherwise settlement of Mediation Cell is deemed to be a decree and cannot be challenged.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have assailed the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the learned ASJ-02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 69/2019 whereby he has upheld the order dated 05.08.2019 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Complaint ID No. 2100/2016; and also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/-on the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 23.09.2020 whereby the Metropolitan Magistrate passed directions under Sections 421/431 Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present petition, are that the complainant had advanced a loan of Rs. 62.5 lacs against which, the petitioners had issued 3 cheques which, on presentation, got dishonoured. A legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued to the petitioners as well as other directors namely Smt. Shivani Grover/Accused No. 3 and Sh. Anil Thukral/Accused No. 4. On request of the learned counsels for the parties, the trial Court twice vide its orders dated 18.11.2016 and 17.08.2017 referred the matter to the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts. A Settlement Agreement dated 05.09.2017 was drawn between the parties in the present petition which was duly signed by petitioner No. 2 agreeing to pay Rs.18 lacs, in instalments, as the full and final settlement towards the cheques in question. The petitioners paid Rs. 4.75 lacs in instalments but thereafter, did not pay the remainder of the agreed amount. Rather, the present petitioners filed an application on 19.03.2019 stating that the Settlement Agreement was not binding upon them as it was executed by the petitioner No. 2 on the promise given to him by the co-accused Anil Thukral that he would pay the entire settlement amount. It was stated that both complainant and Anil Thukral played a fraud upon him. The application came to be dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 05.08.2019. The Sessions Court upheld the same by passing the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised following contentions:

i) the Settlement Agreement is not binding upon the petitioners as the same was signed by petitioner No. 2 on the assurance of the co-accused Anil Thukral that he would pay the entire settlement amount. The instalment totalling to Rs. 4.75 lacs were paid by the petitioners when they received the same from Anil Thukral.

(ii) The trial Court did not record any statement or undertaking of the petitioner No. 2 in pursuance to the Settlement Agreement and therefore, the same cannot be binding upon the petitioners. Reliance was placed on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Dayawati v. Yogesh Kumar Gosain reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11032.

(iii) On petitioner’s filing an application dated 19.03.2019, the trial Court kept the matter for framing of notice implying thereby that the application was allowed and thus subsequently, the trial Court having no power of review, could not have dismissed the application on 05.08.2019 which is in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court passed in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh reported as 1977 AIR SC 2432.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has referred to the conduct of the petitioners in delaying the trial. It is submitted that having agreed to pay the settled amount, the petitioners could not have renege from it. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Double Dot Finance Ltd. v. Goyal MG Gases Ltd. & Anr. reported as 117 (2005) DLT 330.

(ii) Abhinav Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. Uppal Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3304

(iii) Naveen Kumar v. Smt. Khilya Devi & Anr. reported as MANU