RIKTA BAJAJ Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dtd. 12/4/2021 passed by the learned MM (NI Act), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CC Nos. 19390-19400/2016.

(2.) Ms. Aishwarya Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case arises out of complaints filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 had issued 11 cheques totaling to Rs.32,00,000.00, which on presentation got dishonored. She further CRL.M.C. 1352/2021 Page 2 of 6 submits that the present matter relates to the year 2016 and the trial has not proceeded as respondent No. 2 for one reason or the other has deliberately delayed the trial. She submits that on the pretext of settling the matter, respondent No. 2 has continuously remained absent from the Trial Court and resultantly proceedings under Sec. 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him and he was declared an absconder on 6/10/2018. It is submitted that thereafter respondent No. 2 preferred an application under Sec. 70(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation/stay of the order dtd. 6/10/2018, whereby he was declared an absconder, which also came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 10/2/2021. She submits that subsequently, respondent No. 2 approached this Court by way of CRL M.C. Nos. 459/2021 and 517-526/2021 seeking setting aside of the orders dtd. 6/10/2018 and 10/2/2021, which also came to be dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide detailed order dtd. 22/3/2021. She submits that later, the Trial Court while erroneously relying upon Office Order No. 256/RG/DHC/2021 dtd. 8/4/2021 issued by this Court, stayed its own order dtd. 6/10/2018 by completely ignoring the order 22/3/2021 passed by this Court. It is also submitted that the parties have also entered into a Settlement Agreement dtd. 9/5/2019 before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, whereby respondent No. 2 had agreed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.32,00,000.00 however, only part payment of Rs.8,00,000.00 has been made to the petitioner. It is thus submitted that respondent No. 2 had failed to honor its commitment. Lastly, while commenting on the conduct of respondent No. 2, it is submitted that respondent No. 2 is guilty of evading the process of law and delaying the trial. CRL.M.C. 1352/2021 Page 3 of 6

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned order and submits that respondent No. 2 could not honor the settlement on account of financial constraints. He further submits that after passing of the impugned order dtd. 12/4/2021, whereby the order dtd. 6/10/2018 declaring respondent No. 2 as an absconder was stayed, respondent No. 2 has appeared before the Trial Court. He, on instructions, submits that respondent No. 2 undertakes to appear before the Trial Court as and when the matter is fixed. He also submits that in this regard, respondent No. 2 shall also file a written undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from today.