VIJAY PAL SADH vs STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ANR

For Petitioners: Ms. Tamanna Parveen and Mr. Ankur Tripathy, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R 11.03.2025 % CRL.M.A. 7666/2025 in CRL.REV.P. 1334/2019, CRL.M.A. 7657/2025 in CRL.REV.P. 1335/2019, CRL.M.A. 7656/2025 in CRL.REV.P. 1336/2019, CRL.M.A. 7713/2025 in CRL.REV.P. 1337/2019, CRL.M.A. CRL.REV.P. 1339/2019 & CRL.M.A. 7668/2025 in CRL.REV.P. 1340/2019 (for withdrawal of the petition) in CRL.REV.P. 1338/2019, CRL.M.A. 7712/2025

1. Respondent No.2 filed seven complaints regarding dishonour of certain cheques which were stated to be issued by the Petitioner qua repayment of loan. The Petitioner has been convicted in all complaint cases This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:09:35 bearing CC No.49716/16, 49999/16, 53848/16, 54098/16, 54099/16, 54268/16 & 54680/16, titled as Sikandar Bhan vs Vijay Pal Sadh filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner has been convicted through separate judgements in all 7 connected cases. However, he has been sentenced in all the said complaints through common order dated 30th October, 2019. The Magistrate, in the impugned sentencing order dated 30th October, 2019, had directed the Petitioner to pay compensation of INR. 200,000/- each in complaint case-bearing C.C. No. 54268/16, 49999/16, 53848/16, 54099/16, 54680/16, 54098 and a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-- in complaint case bearing C.C. No. 49716/16 Complainant, within a period of one month from today. Further in default of payment of compensation, the convict was directed to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. The appeal against the said judgement and sentence order dated 30th October, 2019 has also been dismissed vide order dated 23rd April, 2019. Hence the present revision petition.

2. Through this application, the Petitioner placed on record a copy of Memorandum of Understanding cum Settlement Agreement dated 3rd February, 2025 executed between Petitioner and Respondent No. 2-Sikandar Bhan (erroneously recorded as Sikandar Bhasin in the memo of parties). As per the said settlement, on the intervention of close family relation, the parties have arrived at an amicable resolution of their disputes. Mr. Sikandar Bhan, the complainant in the cases, has acknowledged that he has received the amount which were due and payable to him under the impugned orders. Mr. Bhan, who is present in the Court, states that he has no grievance against the Petitioner and accordingly confirms that he has no objection in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/03/2025 at 11:09:35 case the offences against the Petitioner are compounded. He further states that he has received an amount of INR 8.5 lakhs from the Petitioner and this aforenoted amount satisfies all the claims which are subject matter of the present petitions.

3. Further, Mr. Sikandar Bhan as well as the Petitioner are duly acknowledged their signatures on the memorandum of understanding. Mr. Bhan and the Petitioner also agree for the waiver of the compensation awarded under the Impugned order on sentencing.

4. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compoundable in nature. Even though an attempt for compounding of the offence under NI Act should be made at an earlier stage of proceedings rather than at a later stage, there is no impediment to seeking compounding of the offence even after conviction.1 The Supreme Court, in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.,2 emphasised that the compensatory aspect of the proceedings under the NI Act takes precedence over the punitive aspect. In this regard, the Court stipulated certain guidelines for compounding the offences under the NI Act, as follows: “4... What must be remembered is that the dishonour of a cheque can be best described as a regulatory offence that has been created to serve the public interest in ensuring the reliability of these instruments. The impact of this offence is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. 18. It is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of dishonour of cheques, it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect. There is also some support for the apprehensions raised by the learned Attorney General that a