9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir disputes, which includes the two complaints which are the subject matter of the present proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. In terms of the said settlement, Respondent No. 2 had agreed that on payment of a sum of ₹30,00,000/- against the entire outstanding amount, the claims towards Respondent No. 2 would be settled. Once it is an admitted position that an agreement was signed by the parties and the payment in terms of the settlement has already been paid by the petitioner, Respondent No. 2 cannot be allowed to wriggle away by taking such arguments - It is not denied by Respondent No. 2 that he was present before the learned Mediator and his statement was recorded of his own free will and without any force, pressure or coercion. If the settlements are discarded and rejected on such grounds, the parties would be wary of entering into any settlement agreement and make payments thereof. It is apparent that Respondent No. 2 after having pocketed the amount received pursuant to the settlement, is trying to reagitate the dispute. Such tendency ought not to be encouraged. The High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC, can definitely look into the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecurity market and persuaded Respondent No. 2 to invest certain amounts. The transactions were done between the parties and the cheques for a sum of ₹50,00,000/- and ₹30,45,000/- were paid by the company in discharge of the liability. On the dishonour of the cheques, the above referred complaints were filed by Respondent No. 2. 7. On 05.03.2016, the matter was referred to Meditation Centre, Saket Courts, on a joint request of the parties, that is, the petitioner and Respondent No. 2. From 05.03.2016 till 27.08.2018, the matters were listed before the learned Trial Court on more than ten occasions, but the matters were kept pending since the settlement proceedings were ongoing between the parties. 8. In the meanwhile, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which included a condition wherein the petitioner was under obligation to not do any act which may affect the rights.. of the Respondent No. 2 in obtaining certain sums from the Investor Protection Fund (IPF) and the due amounts with respect to the settlement agreement were fully paid on 16.05.2016 by the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was kept pending for certain compliances before the learned Trial Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framing of notice under Section 251 of the CrPC. 16. On 27.08.2018 again, it was submitted by the proxy counsel for the parties that the settlement talks are still ongoing and the proceedings were deferred to 15.11.2018. On 15.11.2018, the learned counsel for the complainant apprised the learned Trial Court of the receipt of ₹30,00,000/- after the settlement agreement dated 01.4.2016 and also stated that the remaining amount of ₹50,00,000/- has not been paid to the complainant till date, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner / accused drew the attention of the learned Trial Court towards Clause No. 4, 5 and 6 of the settlement agreement, and submitted that the case should be withdrawn. 17. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court put the matter for consideration of the settlement agreement on 14.12.2018 and 28.01.2019, when the arguments of both the parties were heard. Thereafter, on 21.02.2019, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order. The impugned order 18. The learned Trial Court, by impugned order, had directed the trial to proceed and placed its reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence and the learned Trial Court has only ordered to proceed with the trial on its merits and ordered framing of notice, under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 26. He submitted that not only the complainant but also his wife, had invested huge amount of money with the present petitioner. He submitted that in total two complaints were filed by the Respondent No. 2 in relation to Cheques totalling Rs. 80,45,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lacs Forty-Five Thousand Only) and one complaint was filed by his wife in regard to a cheque of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Only). He submitted that on 23.07.2016, as agreed orally and mutually the wife of Respondent No. 2, withdrew the Complaint Case bearing No. 28167 of 2016 as filed before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the Patiala House Court. 27. He submitted that Respondent No. 2 and his wife also filed a Criminal Complaint against the Petitioner, which was registered as FIR No. 0048 on 10.04.2015 under Sections 120-B, 403, 409, 417, 418, 420, 421 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this regard, he submitted that the Petitioner was arrested and was subsequently granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 16.02.2016. 28. On 16.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as under: 2) That the aforesaid payment has been made in the following manner: a. Chq No. 201693 dated 04-04-2016 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. For Rs 3,00,000.00 (Rs Three Lac Only) in favour of Natasha Oberoi. b. Chq No. 201694 dated 04-04-2016 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. For Rs 7,00,000.00 (Rs Seven Lac Only) in favour of Kabir Oberoi. c. Chq No. 922810 dated 16-05-2016 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. For Rs 3,00,000.00 (Rs Three Lac Only) in favour of Natasha Oberoi. d. Chq No. 922811 dated 16-05-2016 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. For Rs 7,00,000.00 (Rs Seven Lac Only) in favour of Kabir Oberoi. 32. It is not disputed that a sum of ₹30,00,000/- has been received by Respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, however, contends that the said agreement was only one of the drafts exchanged between the parties and since the same was not recorded by the Court, is not binding. 33. The argument advanced on behalf of Respondent No. 2 on the face of the proceedings as noted by the learned Mediator, is an afterthought and is not bona fide. It is apparent that the amicable settlement was arrived at betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts thereof. It is apparent that Respondent No. 2 after having pocketed the amount received pursuant to the settlement, is trying to reagitate the dispute. Such tendency ought not to be encouraged. 44. When, from the perusal of the record of the Trial Court/ mediation proceedings, it is apparent that the parties had settled their disputes way back in the year 2016 and the complainant has also accepted the amount as agreed between the parties, continuation of the proceedings under the NI Act would be an abuse of the process of the Court. 45. As discussed above, the complainant, after having accepted the money, is trying to re-agitate the entire proceedings and has succeeded in keeping the proceedings pending since the year 2016. 46. It is also not the case of the complainant that he, at any stage, offered to return the amount received from the petitioner. 47. The conduct of the litigants to keep the dispute alive for mala fide reasons has the tendency of keeping the docket of the Courts heavy to the detriment of other litigants whose cases have been pending for years together. 48. The High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC, can definitely look into the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
