$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 490/2025 CELEBRATIONS .....Appellant Through: Appearance not given.

versus MILI SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hem Chand Vashisht and Mr. Daksha Dhiman, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 08.12.2025 CRL.M.A. 36505/2025

1. Application has been filed on behalf of the Applicant / Respondent / accused for released of Demand Draft bearing No.695451 of Rs.1,90,000/-

drawn on Canara Bank, Greater Kailash-II Branch.

2. It is submitted that while present Appeal was pending against the Judgment of acquittal under Section 138 of NI Act, parties arrived at a settlement for Rs.1,90,000/-. On 14.11.2022, the Applicant / Respondent had handed over the aforesaid Demand Draft in favour of Celebrations (Petitioner) before this Court and his statement was also recorded and he signed the statement. However, after taking the Demand Draft Appellant deliberately avoided recording of his statement and left the Court, without consent and failed to honour the settlement.

3. Consequently, Bailable warrants were issued against him. Demand Draft was seized by the Police and deposited in the Court, in terms of the Order dated 14.11.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant started blackmailing the Applicant / Respondent / accused demanding more money and threatening to withdraw the purported settlement. Earlier settlement was merely a tactic to extort money from the Applicant / Respondent.

4. This such conduct of the Appellant amounts to fraud, mala fide and abuse of process of law. The Application was filed before the Executing Court seeking released of Demand Draft. Since the Appellant had retracted from his earlier statement dated 14.11.2022, regarding settlement of the dispute, the Demand Draft is lying in the custody of the Court and can be released only after the Order of this Court, after the matter got settled between the parties in CRL.L.P. 30/2021.

5. Equity and justice demands that Demand Draft be returned to the Applicant / Respondent / accused. An RFA No.94/2022 was filed, but it was noticed that due to oversight and typographical error, it was wrongly typed in paragraph nos.8 and 9 of the Application that “no concluded or binding settlement ever took place and the DD continues to remain in Custodia legis”. 6. It was submitted that the Applicant after borrowing funds from her well-wishers for the purpose of settlement, had got the Demand Draft prepared, but the Appellant had clearly retracted from his earlier statement regarding settlement of the dispute and therefore, the Demand Draft is liable to be returned to the Applicant / Respondent / accused.

7. The first thing from the record that emerges, is that an earlier Application dated 26.11.2025, had been withdrawn by the Applicant / Respondent / accused. Now, again on the same facts, the Application has been filed by the Applicant / Respondent / accused.

8. The record shows that the in the Order dated 02.09.2024, it had been specifically recorded that there was no concluded settlement between the parties. Despite the various Order-sheets and the Appeal having been finally decided vide Judgement dated 28.06.2025, the Applicant / Respondent / accused is going on moving these Applications, which have not merit.

9. Accordingly, present Application is dismissed.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

DECEMBER 8, 2025/