$~35

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CONT.CAS(C) 1006/2016¸ CM APPL. 2226/2026 & CM APPL.

2227/2026

INDIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Varun Singh, Adv.

versus

RAJNISH SONI & ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Mr. Prakash

Jha, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Yash S. Vijay, Mr. Shikhar

Aggarwal, Mr. Joshua Tom Thomas,

Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971, seeks the following prayers: -

“i) Punish the respondents for non compliance of the Compromise made by them vide order dated 29.01.2015 passed in CC/671/1/11

under the Contempt of Courts Act.

ii) Pass any such order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in favour of

the Petitioner.”

3. The present petition has been filed seeking wilful disobedience and non compliance of the compromise entered into between the parties before learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 29.01.2015 in CC/671/1/11 and

CC/672/1/11 (CC Nos.466016/2016 & 464600/2016).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents vide the said MoU had undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.3 Crores to the petitioner in the manner laid out in the order. It is further submitted that despite the settlement, the respondent had defaulted in making the payment to the petitioner. It is further submitted after the said MoU was arrived between the parties, the respondents stopped appearing before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, and bailable warrants were issued against the respondents vide order dated 31.07.2015, and subsequently, learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 08.10.2015 had issued process under Section 82 of the CrPC against respondent No.1. It is submitted that a revision petition against the said order issuing process under Section 82 of the CrPC was also dismissed by learned ASJ vide judgment dated 16.12.2015. It is submitted that the respondents never intended to comply with the undertaking given by them and the same was tendered with the sole object of frustrating the due process of law. In view of these circumstances, it is submitted that the respondents are in contempt of their undertaking given before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as contained in order dated 29.01.2015.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that after the default in payment in pursuance of the aforesaid MoU, the trial was proceeded in the complaints instituted on behalf of the petitioner, in pursuance of the following term of aforesaid MoU dated 29.01.2015: -

“If two installments are not paid by the accused No. 2, the aforesaid settlement shall stands cancelled, the amount paid if any shall forfeited and the matter shall be tried on early basis.”

6. It is further submitted that the proceedings in the said compliant cases were never terminated in pursuance of the said MoU and same were pending throughout. It is further submitted that vide order dated 29.01.2015 for which compliance has been sought, the matter was put for payment of first installment and the proceedings never culminated. It is pointed out that the learned Trial Court, vide separate judgments dated 31.05.2018 in aforesaid complaint cases, after trial, had acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and therefore, no wilful disobedience or non compliance of the order dated 29.01.2015 has been made out against the respondent. It is further submitted that the order dated 08.10.2015 whereby, process under Section 82 of the CrPC was initiated against respondent No.1 was quashed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRL.M.C. 373/2016 vide order dated 29.01.2016 and respondent No.1 was directed to join the proceedings before learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the subject complaints. On behalf of respon