CRL. REV. P.708/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. REV.P. 708/2009 Decided on 11.08.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : PAWAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.K.L.Janjani, Mr.S.Pandey and Ms.Hema Sahu, Advocates with petitioner in person versus STATE OF NCT,DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP. SI Sanjay Kumar, PS Rajouri Garden Mr.Gurmeet Singh, legal heir of deceased S.Jaswant Singh CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the learned ASJ in Crl. A.No.9/2009, confirming the conviction order of the petitioner dated 21.4.2009, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, holding him guilty of the offence under Sections 279/304A IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment CRL. REV. P.708/2009 Page 2 of 4 of 12 months with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, further undergo simple imprisonment of one month. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that after the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned ASJ was dismissed, he was taken into custody and has undergone conviction for a period of one month and 21 days, w.e.f. 26.11.2009. In the present proceedings, vide order dated 14.1.2010 the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner was suspended during the pendency of the case, on the terms and conditions as imposed in the said order. 3. The order dated 14.1.2010, records the willingness expressed by the petitioner to further compensate the legal heirs of the victim of the accident, late S.Jaswant Singh. It was also recorded in the said order that the fine of Rs.6,000/- imposed on the petitioner, was deposited by him in the trial court and the same had already been disbursed to the legal heir of the deceased as compensation, in terms of the directions of the trial court as contained in the judgment and order dated 26.11.2009. 4. It is now stated by the counsel for the petitioner that a settlement had been arrived at between him and the legal heir of the deceased, Mr. Gurmeet Singh, on 21.4.2010, in terms of which Mr.Gurmeet Singh agreed to receive additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- from the petitioner in full and final settlement. The duly notorized original Settlement Agreement dated 21.4.2010 is handed over by the counsel for the petitioner and taken on the record. CRL. REV. P.708/2009 Page 3 of 4 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the sum of Rs.30,000/-, as mentioned in the Settlement Agreement, which has already been paid to Mr.Gurmeet Singh, the petitioner volunteers to pay him a sum of Rs.15,000/- in addition. The petitioner hands over a cheque bearing No.050462 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- dated 25.8.2010 drawn on Indian Bank, Deshbandhu Gupta Road to Mr.Gurmeet Singh, who is present in the Court and duly identified by the Investigating Officer, which is duly accepted by the latter, in full and final settlement. The petitioner undertakes to the court that the aforesaid cheque when presented, shall be duly honoured and in case the same is not honoured, Mr.Gurmeet Singh shall be entitled to approach the court for revival of the present proceedings, apart from filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. As noticed above, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation to Mr. Gurmeet Singh, legal heir of the deceased victim and parties have arrived at an interse settlement. Out of the quantum of sentence of one year, the petitioner has already served the sentence for a period of one month and 21 days. The incident took place in the year 1999, when the petitioner was only about 20 years of age and he is now a responsible citizen having married, with two minor children to look after. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the present case and considering the fact that the petitioner is stated not to be involved in any other criminal case apart from the present one, and it appears that he has been assimilated in the main stream of the society as a useful citizen, no useful purpose shall be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence. Learned APP for the State has no objection if the sentence of the petitioner CRL. REV. P.708/2009 Page 4 of 4 is reduced to the period already undergone. 7. The present petition is accordingly disposed of by upholding the conviction order, but reducing the sentence to the period undergone. As the petitioner is on bail, the bail bond and the surety shall stand discharged. (HIMA KOHLI) AUGUST 11, 2010 JUDGE mk