Allowed

Suninder Sandha v. Arun Gupta & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Dec 2024CRL.M.C./142/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash a summoning order in a Section 138 cheque-dishonour complaint. Respondent No. 1 stated the disputes were settled voluntarily and did not wish to prosecute. Court held prosecution served no useful purpose and quashed the summoning order and complaint against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 13.03.2018 and the complaint quashed vis-a-vis the petitioner.

Suninder Sandha Vs Arun Gupta & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~127

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 142/2019, CRL.M.A. 640/2019

¶4

SUNINDER SANDHA

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Devna Soni, Mr. Rayman Singh, Mr. Adhirath Singh, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

ARUN GUPTA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj Pandey, Adv.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 04.12.2024

¶12

This is a petition seeking quashing of summoning order dated 13.03.2018 passed by learned MM, South District, Saket Courts in C.C. No. 13445/2017 titled as “ Aruna Gupta vs. M/s Concept Horizon Infra Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ”

¶13

The summoning order is passed in complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1880 filed by respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 1 and states that respondent No. 1 has settled the disputes and does not wish to prosecute the complaint.

¶15

It is also stated by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel that the said settlement is predicated on the fact that at the time when the cheque was dishonoured, the petitioner was not the Director.

¶16

Parties state that they have arrived at the settlement out of their own

¶17

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 10/12/2024 at 10:56:57

¶18

free will without any threat, pressure, coercion or undue influence.

¶19

I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the complaint vis-à-vis the petitioner any further on the ground that the parties have arrived at a voluntary settlement and settled their disputes.

¶20

I am convinced that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice. The Court does not see any fruitful purpose if criminal proceedings as permitted to continue any further. It is a fit case for quashing.

¶21

In view of the statement of respondent No. 1 with respect to the settlement, the petition is allowed and the summoning order dated 13.03.2018 passed by learned MM, South District, Saket Courts in C.C. No. 13445/2017 titled as “Aruna Gupta vs. M/s Concept Horizon Infra Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. along with the complaint vis-a-vis the petitioner is hereby quashed. 9. Respondent No. 3 is at liberty to agitate his grievance against the petitioner and other respondents.

¶22

This order will not affect any other proceedings in any manner.

¶23

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶24

DECEMBER 4, 2024/DM

¶25

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 10/12/2024 at 10:56:57

Suninder Sandha v. Arun Gupta & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suninder Sandha v. Arun Gupta & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Kumar Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Hardeep Singh Arneja Vs M/S Srs Ltd. & Anr.

Wasim Salmani Vs Fursat Ali

Parvez Ahmed Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Abdul Muqeet Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Mohd Ilyas Vs Directorate of Enforcement