The main legal point established in the judgment is the legal implications of default in complying with a settlement and the applicability of Section 148 of the NI Act to appeals against the order of conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - All the three above-mentioned petitions are being taken up together for their adjudication as the genesis thereof lies in the same Criminal Complaint case.

2. As per the brief factual-matrix culminating in the filing of these petitions by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, respondent No.2-complainant (here-in-after to be referred to as 'respondent No.2') filed the Criminal Complaint bearing NACT No.2227 of 2016 against the petitioner-convict-appellant (here- in-after to be referred to as 'the petitioner') under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act') while alleging therein that the petitioner had taken the financial assistance from him (respondent No.2) to the tune of Rs.1.14 crore. In discharge of his afore-said liability, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 10.05.2016 worth Rs.1.45 crore in his (respondent No.2's) favour. However, when presented in the concerned Bank for its encashment, the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient' vide the memo dated 06.08.2016. Then, he sent a legal notice dated 05.09.2016 to the petitioner, through registered post, asking him therein to pay the cheque amount but the petitioner failed to do the needful in this regard.

3. Respondent No.2 led his preliminary evidence and vide the order dated 03.02.2017, the trial Court summoned the petitioner to face the trial under the afore-mentioned provisions. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner appeared in the Court and the notice of accusation was, accordingly, served to him and he pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed trial. Thereafter, respondent No.2 concluded his evidence and then, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on the record wherein he stated that the above-said cheque had been misused by respondent No.2.

He also examined three witnesses in his defence evidence. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the trial Court, vide the judgment as passed on 05.03.2020, held the petitioner guilty for committing the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and vide the order dated 07.03.2020, he was sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and was ordered to pay the amount of Rs.2,17,50,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-said judgment and the order on sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal and during the pendency thereof, both the parties arrived at a compromise/settlement qua their dispute and made their statements (annexed as P-3 and P-4 in CRM-M No.38988 of 2021) in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat (for short 'the Appellate Court') on 09.04.2021 and in view of the same, the Appellate Court passed the order Annexure P-5 on the same day. However, the petitioner moved application Annexure P-14 for seeking the modification/ clarification/rectification of the said order (Annexure P-5) and vide order Annexure P-16 as passed on 27.08.2021, the Appellate Court disposed of the above-said application while clarifying that 'in case of non-payment of the settled amount, the respondent shall be entitled to claim the balance amount as per the order of learned trial Court dated 05.03.2020/ 07.03.2020.' The petitioner has assailed this order in CRM-M No.38988 of 2021.

5. It is worth-while to mention here that the petitioner moved another application (annexed as P-11 in CRM-M No.37044 of 2021) before the Appellate Court for seeking the refund of the amount of Rs.50 lac as paid by him to respondent No.2, while averring that as per the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 09.04.2021, he (petitioner) was required to pay the total sum of Rs.1.5 crore to respondent No.2, in three instalments of Rs.50 lac each, on 30.04.2021, 31.05.2021 and 10.06.2021 and he had paid the first insta