Crl.Rev.P.651/2015 Page 1 of 8

$~37

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.REV. P. 651/2015

Date of decision: 16.10.2015

BIJENDER KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Advocate.

versus

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.K.K.Sharma, Advocate for

the complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A No15183/2015

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV. P. 651/2015

1.

With the consent of the parties, the revision petition has been

taken up for final disposal.

2.

The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this

Court challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated

18.02.2015/07.03.2015 whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted

the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

(for short „NI Act‟) and has sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.18,000/-

under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default

2015:DHC:8778

Crl.Rev.P.651/2015 Page 2 of 8

of payment of fine, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for a period

of six months; as also the judgment and order passed in appeal dated

01.10.215 passed by the Special Judge/CBI-02, (P.C.Act), North-West

District, Rohini Courts whereby the judgment of conviction by the

Trial Court has been upheld and the sentence has been reduced from

one year Simple Imprisonment to simple imprisonment for a period of

15 days and to pay compensation amount of Rs.18,000/- and in default

of payment of the same, Simple Imprisonment for 7 days.

3.

After the conviction of the petitioner, an agreement was entered

into between the petitioner and respondent on 05.10.2015 wherein the

petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- out of the total

award amount of Rs.3,59,000/- to the respondent on the condition that

he would cooperate with the petitioner in securing acquittal of the

petitioner. The aforesaid amount has been agreed to be towards full

and final settlement of the claims of the respondent. The agreement

further indicates that in cases where the petitioner has been acquitted

and where the respondent has preferred an appeal against the acquittal,

the same shall be withdrawn.

4.

It would be necessary to refer to the prosecution case for

deciding the aforesaid revision petition.

5.

The petitioner is said to have taken a friendly loan of

Rs.3,45,000/- from the respondent on 15.01.2006 at the rate of 18%

per annum interest for the purposes of marriage of his daughter with a

promise to return the loan amount within two years. Several post dated

cheques were issued by the petitioner towards his liability for

repayment of loan. When the loan amount was not repaid on time, a

2015:DHC:8778

Crl.Rev.P.651/2015 Page 3 of 8

request was made to the petitioner to pay up the loan but to no avail.

The respondent is said to have presented one cheque bearing

No.525353 dated 25.09.2007 for a sum of Rs.12,000/-, drawn on

Central Bank of India, Ghonda, Mauj Pur, Delhi in his bank which

was returned as dishonoured with the remark “insufficient funds” on

08.01.2008. After observing the formalities required under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint was lodged in

which the petitioner was summoned, tried and punished. The

complainant, during the trial submitted that a total loan of

Rs.3,45,000/- was taken by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage of

his daughter. 11 cheques were issued at the time of taking of loan for

the purposes of repayment of said loan in instalments and out of said

11 cheques, 9 cheques of different denominations we