A $-18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 395/2010 % R C PANDEY Petitioner Through: Mr.Asliish Sharma & Mr. Rahul Tomar for Mr. P.K. Arya, Adv. with petitioner in person. versus RASHMI SHARMA & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. K.IC. Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER 26.09.2012 Cri.M.A.6976/2011 Respondent no.1-complainant filed this application for sending the petitioner-convicttojail becauseof his failureto pay Rs. 2 laldis in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties where he had agreed to pay to respondent no.l a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in addition to the amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs which the trial Court had directed him to pay after his conviction under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstrumentsAct. On 16"^ December, 2010 the petitioner had made a prayer Ibr modificationof the sentence in view of the said compromisebetween the parties. This Court accepted the compromiseand disposedof the revision petition by reducingthe sentence of imprisonmentawarded to the petitioner-convictto the period which he had already undergone by that time subject to his making additional paymentof Rs. 2 laldisto respondentno. 1-complainantwithintwo months. CRL.REV.P. 395/2010 page 1 of 2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified / t I In reply to this applicationthe petitioner-convicthas taken a standthat he had never agreed for payment of additional amount of Rs. 2 lalchsto the respondent no.l and in fact the .respondent no.l had misled him into beheving that he had settled the matter foi- Rs. 2.5 laldis only as was awarded by the trial Court and she had obtained his signatures on some blank paper and later on misused it. Howe\er, when notice of the present applicationreceivedby him then he only cameto know that respondentno.l had played fraud on him. This standtaken by the petitioner-convictin his reply dated 19"' July, 2012 carmot be believed to be correct and it clearly appears to be an afterthought and taken only to avoid going back to jail. Considering the conduct of the petitioner-convict in backing out from the settlement which he had entered into ith respondent no.l-complainant and got the same recorded in Court on 16"' December, 2010 through his counsel I am of the view that the order reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner-convict needs to be recalled and the same is hereb} recalled. In view of the conduct of the petitioner-convict his revision petition would now stand dismissed with the result that the sentence awarded Lo the petitioner by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court wonId now become enforceable. The trial Court be informed of this order. P.K. BHASIN, SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 nk CRL.REV.P. 395/2010 pagc2of2