J U D G M E N T

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C.‟) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging order dated 19.12.2020 passed by learned MM-06, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 49784/2016 titled as Nisha Devi vs. Guru Kirpal Singh @ Guddu, in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, whereby, an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner/complainant under Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of warrant of attachment and initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent/accused for willful default and breach of settlement order and undertaking was dismissed.

2. In brief, as per the case of petitioner, in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, respondent (who was summoned as an accused) expressed his intention to compromise the matter and offered to settle the disputes by making payment of Rs. 1.20 crore against original liability of Rs. 1.10 crore. The same was agreed by the petitioner/complainant and a statement/undertaking of the respondent was recorded vide order dated 09.11.2020 by learned MM. A DD of Rs. 5 lacs dated 06.11.2020, prepared by the respondent in the name of petitioner along with 05 post-dated cheques of different dates were also handed over by the respondent on 09.11.2020. Respondent was accordingly released on interim bail and the matter was further fixed for 17.12.2020.

3. After more than a month of settlement and part discharge of the liability towards the settlement, the respondent backed out from his statement made before the learned Trial Court as recorded vide order 17.12.2020. An application under Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. for issuance of warrant of attachment was further dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 19.12.2020.

4. Mr. Puneet Mittal, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner submits that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, refusing to issue warrant of attachment and treating the settlement „non est’ merely on the ground that the matter was not referred to mediation and formal order accepting the settlement was not passed, is erroneous, since the Court is not barred from recording the settlement between the parties. He points out that only in case, the matter is referred to mediation, a formal order of acceptance of settlement is required to be passed by the learned Trial Court as held in Dayawati vs Yogesh Kumar Gosain, Crl. Reference No. 1/2016 decided on

17.10.2017.

He further emphasizes that statement of respondent was duly recorded by the Court itself after ensuring that the same is voluntary and settlement was recorded. As such, the observations made by the learned Trial Court that there is no valid settlement within the spirit of Dayawati vs Yogesh Kumar Gosain (supra) is erroneous. He urges that recording of settlement by the Court is not barred in law and the reasoning extended by the learned Trial Court relying upon Dayawati vs Yogesh Kumar Gosain (supra) that procedure of mediation is to be followed is misplaced.

5. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Manan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition and submits that settlement entered by respondent/accused was not voluntary but under immense pressure meted out by the petitioner of getting him arrested. The impugned order dated 19.12.2020 passed by learned MM is further supported by him on the ground that neither the matter was referred to mediation, nor statement of parties was recorded pursuant to any mediation settlement and further no formal order/acceptance of such settlement, after assessing its voluntariness and explaining the consequences of breach had been passed by the learned MM at the time of settlement.

Reliance is further placed upon Dayawati vs Yogesh Kumar Gosain (supra), Rajkumar Kuchhal vs. Loyal Logistics Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9649 and Vikas Aggarwal v