$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 477/2024 SIMMI ANAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Adv.

versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms.

Upasna Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Kshitij Goel and Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 16.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 5130/2026 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 5129/2026 (By respondent no.2 for directions to the Registry to release the compensation amount)

3. By virtue of the present application, the respondent no.2 seeks direction to the Registry of this Court to release the compensation amount in his favour in pursuance of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.12.2025 in S.L.P (Crl.) no.

19550/2025.

4. As per para 4 of order dated 18.12.2025, following direction was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide dated order 08.12.2025 directing as under:

“... ...6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner-accused and respondent No.2-complainant have settled their dispute with reference to issuance of the defaulted cheque by the petitioner to respondent No.2 and the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner with the Courts below, as noticed above, is to be released in favour of respondent No.2, we compound the offence. The sentence of the petitioner shall stand set aside and 20% of the amount deposited by the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge – 04, (West District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with reference to CNR No.DLWT01- 006705- 2023 and 80% of the amount deposited in the High Court with reference to Criminal Revision Petition No.477 of 2024, be released in favour of respondent No.2 on furnishing of her bank account details.... ...”

5. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2024 suspended the sentence awarded to the petitioner albeit subject to deposit of fine along with interest accrued, with the Registrar General of this Court

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that upon query from the Registry, it has emerged that there is no FDR deposited by the petitioner in terms of the earlier order dated 08.04.2024.

7. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the petitioner accepts notices respectively.

8. Let a report be called from the Registry regarding the existence of an FDR deposited by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 08.04.2024 within a period of four weeks.

9. Be that as it may, if it is found that there is no FDR, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for depositing a fresh Demand Draft of the requisite sum, subject to following the requisite terms and conditions as contained in the order dated

08.04.2024.

10. Renotify on 23.04.2026.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

FEBRUARY 16, 2026/bh