$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1000/2026 PAWAN CHAWLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Karan Luthra, Advocate.

versus DPL INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 05.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 3916/2026 (for exemption Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1000/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3915/2026 (for stay

1. Issue notice to the respondents by all permissible modes, additionally through learned counsel appearing on their behalf before the learned Sessions Court.

2. The petitioner, who was the complainant in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [“NI Act”], assails an order of the Sessions Court dated 17.12.2025, by which a revision petition against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 29.07.2025 was set aside. The effect of the impugned order is that the petitioner is required to prosecute the complaint on merits, despite a settlement agreement having been entered into between the parties on 30.05.2018, which the respondents have not fully complied with.

3. Mr. Karan Luthra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the settlement was duly accepted by the Court, and although no formal order compounding the offence was passed, the respondents also partially complied with the settlement. He further submits that the petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 421 read with Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”], seeking recovery of the balance settlement amount, and that even during the pendency of those proceedings, partial payment was made by the respondent. In sum, as of today, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs. 1.67 crores out of the settlement amount of Rs. 4.5 crores, which was originally to be paid by

30.06.2019.

4. By an order dated 29.07.2025, the learned Magistrate’s Court allowed the petitioner’s application under Section 421 read with 431 of the CrPC, for recovery of the balance amount through attachment of the properties of the respondents.

5. Mr. Luthra submits that the decision of the learned Sessions Court, relegating the petitioner to proceed with the Section 138 proceedings on merits, is contrary to several judgments which hold that Section 138 proceedings are subsumed in the settlement, and the appropriate remedy is to execute the settlement. He relies on the judgments in Dayawati v. Yogesh Kumar Gosain [2017 SCC OnLine Del 11032], and Nisha Devi v. Gur Kirpal Singh [2024 SCC OnLine Del 5216], in this connection.

6. Mr. Luthra seeks a limited ad-interim order to the extent that the respondents be restrained from disposing of their assets. He draws my attention to a statement made on their behalf before the learned Magistrate on 25.09.2025 [Annexure P-16 to the petition], pursuant to the order of attachment.

7. Having regard to the prima facie case made out, the respondents are directed not to dispose of their assets, as disclosed in affidavit of assets filed before the learned Magistrate’s Court, until the next date of hearing before this Court.

8. List on 03.03.2026 in the category of “for Admission” matters.

PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 5, 2026 ‘pv/KA’/