Allowed

Vishal Gupta v. M/S Mahadev Enterprises

Delhi HC12 Mar 2025CRL.REV.P.(NI)/63/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner convicted for dishonour of five cheques totalling Rs. 50 lakh issued to a dry fruits seller sought revision against concurrent judgments. Parties settled during pendency, respondent receiving Rs. 25 lakh by demand drafts. Relying on compounding precedents, the High Court set aside both the appellate and trial court judgments and directed release.

What did the court decide?

Judgment dated 31.01.2025 in CA No. 222/2019 and judgment dated 04.04.2019 in CC No. 525014/16 set aside; petitioner released forthwith if not required elsewhere.

Vishal Gupta Vs M/S Mahadev Enterprises — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.REV.P.(NI) 63/2025, CRL.M.(BAIL) 470/2025, CRL.M.A. 7860/2025 VISHAL GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arjun Anand, Ms. Priyam Wadhawan, Mr. Antriksh Tiwari, Mr. Abdul Humair Baig, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

M/S MAHADEV ENTERPRISES .....Respondent

¶6

Through: Counsel (appearance not given).

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 12.03.2025

¶10

CRL.M.A. 7861/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

CRL.REV.P.(NI) 63/2025, CRL.M.(BAIL) 470/2025, CRL.M.A. 7860/2025

¶14

By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned ASJ (FTC-I), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 222/2019, whereby judgment dated 04.04.2019 passed by learned MM-04 (NI Act), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 525014/16 was upheld.

¶15

Issue notice. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent accepts notice.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the parties inform this Court that

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 01/07/2025 at 10:49:39

¶19

the petitioner is running in judicial custody in the present case.

¶20

Brief facts, as discernable from the material on record, are that on 11.03.2014, as alleged, the petitioner herein had purchased dry fruits worth Rs. 10,01,669/- from the respondent and had paid the consideration amount in cash. On 13.03.2014, the petitioner had purchased dry fruits worth Rs. 25,14,073/- and had paid the consideration amount in cash. From 17.03.2014 to 19.03.2014, the respondent had sold dry fruits worth Rs. 85,00,000/- to the petitioner and against the said sale, the petitioner had given cheques of Rs. 10,00,000/- each bearing No. 744001-744005, drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On 19.03.2014, the respondent had presented the alleged cheques in his bank namely IDBI Bank Ltd, Chandni Chowk, Delhi for realization. However, the said cheques were returned as the same were dishonored with the reason “Payment Stopped by Drawer” as mentioned on the memo given by the respondent‟s bank.

¶21

However, it is stated that during the pendency of the present petition, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, voluntarily. 8. On a query made by this Court, respondent, who has been identified by his counsel, has categorically stated that he has agreed to compromise out of his own free will and without any pressure, coercion or threat. Further, it is also stated by respondent no. 2 that the entire dispute has been amicably settled/compromised between the parties and the respondent has received an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (By way of Five Different Demand Drafts of Rs.5,00,000/- each, drawn on Bank of India) and therefore, respondent has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

¶22

In the case at hand, the parties have amicably resolved their differences on their own free will, and without any coercion, and thus, no

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 01/07/2025 at 10:49:39

¶25

useful purpose will be fulfilled by continuing the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them.

¶26

It is also a settled law that offence under Section 138 of NI Act can be settled and compounded at any stage under Section 147 of NI Act, and when a person is allowed to compound the offence, his conviction can be set aside [See Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.: (2010) 5 SCC 663 ; K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed & Ors (2010) 1 SCC 798 ; Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC 305 ]. Since the matter has been settled between the parties and petitioner has cleared all his dues towards respondent, there is no legal impediment in allowing the present petition.

¶27

Accordingly, judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned ASJ (FTC-I), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CA No. 222/2019, is set aside. The judgment dated 04.04.2019 passed by learned MM-04 (NI Act), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 525014/16 is also set aside.

¶28

The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 13. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending applications stands disposed of.

¶29

Copy of this order be forwarded to the Jail Superintendent concerned.

¶30

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶31

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶32

MARCH 12, 2025/zp

¶33

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 01/07/2025 at 10:49:39

Vishal Gupta v. M/S Mahadev Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Gupta v. M/S Mahadev Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Kumar @ Mintu Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Manish Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Sh. Ram Daresh Mehto Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Chirag Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Rajinder Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Salman Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi