The High Court of Delhi quashed criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act after the petitioner settled the dispute with the complainant by paying Rs. 18 lakhs, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Judgment, sentence order, and first appellate order set aside; criminal proceedings quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 9th July, 2019
MRS. SUMAN ARORA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal & Mr. Abhishek Srivastava & Dr. Sudharshan Kumar, Advs.
versus
SUNDEEP KUMRA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Dutt, Adv. with respondent in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
Crl. M.C. No.637/2019
Page 1 of 3
Crl. M.C. No.637/2019
Page 2 of 3
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 09, 2019 nk
Crl. M.C. No.637/2019
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be quashed upon settlement of the dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶19
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶19
Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Suman Arora
Sundeep Kumra
R.K. Gauba
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R.K. Gauba
Parties & counsel
