Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21565 (DEL)

OM PRAKASH GULATI v. RITU

CRL.REV.P.(NI)/220/2025 · 2026-10-13

Sachin Datta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL.REV.P.(NI) 220/2025 p. 1 $~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010689712025 + OM PRAKASH GULATI .....Petitioner CRL.REV.P.(NI) 220/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1937/2025 Through: Mr. Prateek Singh, Advocate. versus RITU .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sahil Kakkar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) CRL.M.A.32394/2026 (SEEKING TO DEPOSIT/PLACE ON RECORD THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 10.09.2026 IN TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 09.01.2026 ON B/O PETITIONER) 1. By way of the present application, the petitioner seeks to deposit/place a bank draft of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 10.09.2026. The said bank draft is the last instalment under the Settlement Agreement dated 09.01.2026. The respondent/complainant is stated to have refused to accept the same. 2. The present revision petition [i.e., CRL.REV.P.(NI) 220/2025] has been filed under Section 438/442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”), assailing the judgment/order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act), South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in CA No. 2130/2024 & CR No. 2202/2024. By the said CRL.REV.P.(NI) 220/2025 p. 2 judgment, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the revision petition filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed. 3. The original complaint, CC No. 9175/2019, was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and concerned cheque no. 880829 for Rs. 2,27,000/- 4. The petitioner was convicted on 22.12.2023 and, by order dated 01.08.2024, sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs. 2,80,000/- as fine, to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further one month. The Appellate Court retained the sentence of imprisonment. It, however, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,80,000/- to Rs.4,54,000/-. 5. During the pendency of these proceedings, the parties settled their dispute before the Samadhan (Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre). In terms thereof, the petitioner has to pay a total sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the respondent as full and final settlement of the claims. 6. It is undisputed that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the respondent till date. It is submitted by the petitioner that he could not arrange the last instalment by 30.08.2026, due to certain personal exigencies. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner has now obtained a bank draft dated 10.09.2026 of Rs.1,00,000/-. Today, the respondent is also present in Court and during the course of hearing, the said bank draft of Rs.1,00,000/- has been handed over to the respondent. With the above payment, the entire settlement amount of Rs.5,50,000/- shall stand paid. CRL.REV.P.(NI) 220/2025 p. 3 8. The present application is, accordingly disposed of, taking on record the factum of the aforesaid payment. 9. Since the settlement agreement has been complied with, no further orders are required to be passed in the main matter as well [CRL.REV.P.(NI) 220/2025], and the same stands disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 10. CRL.M.(BAIL) 1937/2025, seeking suspension of sentence, also stands disposed of as having become infructuous. 11. Let a copy of the present order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for necessary information. 12. The date already fixed i.e., 08.12.2026 stands cancelled. SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 13, 2026/at/sd