$~40&68 ; F * IN THE HIGH COURT OFj DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.270/2011 & CrLM.A.6897/2011(directions) UNITEL TECHNOLOGY (INDIA PVT LTD) Petitioner Through ^ Petitioner in person. i i: versus | PRAKASHWATI J Respondent Through Mr. Baldev Raj, Ms. Swati Shukla, • Advs. + CRL.REV.P.275/2011&Crl.M.47061/2011(directions) UNITED TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PVT LTD Petitioner Through Petitioner in person. versus 1: i; *,i YASHJITBASRAR 'l .....Respondent Through 'Mr.?Baldev Raj, Ms. Swati Shukla, Advs. • CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTk GUPTA ; M ORDER % 15.12;20I1 5 j By the abovementioned revision petitions the Petitioner challenges the judgment of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge and the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting and sentencing the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 138 of tlie Negotiable Instruments Act in CRL.REV.P.NOS. 270/2011 & 275/2011 page 1 of 3 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 s r Complaintcases No. 961/2008 and 962/2008 lodged on the complaintof Ms. Prakash Wati wife of late Shri Raj Kishan and Shri Yash Jit Basrar son of late Shri Raj Kishanon the groundthatthepartieshave settledthematter. This Court by its order dated 25* March, 2011 has already quashed the impugnedordersquathe ManagingDirectorof the Petitionercompany. Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Respondent has settled the matter not only with the Managing Director but with the Petitioner company as well and in view of the settlement he does not wish to proceed against the company. Since the parties have entered into a settlement of their own free will without any coercion and in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C. an offence can be compounded even at the stage of appeal or revision, there is no legal impediment in quashing the abovementioned complaints and the proceedings pursuant thereto. Since the parties have amicable settled the matter, it would not be in the interest ofjustice to continue the conviction of the Petitioner. Consequently, the impugned judgments of the Learned Trial Court dated 13* July,2010 convictingthe Petitionercompanypassedin Complaint cases No. 961/2008 and 962/2008 and also the judgment of the Learned CRL.REV.RNos. 270/2011 & 275/2011 page 2 of 3 Appellate Court dated 1^^ February, 2011 passed in Crl. Appeal Nos. 40/2010and 41/2010are herebyset aside. Petitionsandpendingapplicationsaredisposedof. Order dasti. MUKTA GUPTA,J DECEMBER 15,2011 'ga' CRL.REV.P.NOS.270/2011 & 275/2011 page 3 of3