TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/12 titled as “M/s Arun International Vs. M/s. Shree Shyam Enterprises & Ors.” is quashed qua the petitioner. The Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to pass the appropriate judgment in accordance with the circumstances in the matter against the respondent No.2 without any further delay on the basis of the statement made in mediation and to the court. The present petitions are accordingly allowed. - CRL.M.C. NO.1041/2015 & CRL.M.A. NO.3903/2015, CRL.M.C. NO.1056/2015 & CRL.M.A. NO.3941/2015, CRL.M.C. NO.1057/2015 & CRL.M.A. NO.3943/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2015 - HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay Sethi, Adv. with Mr.Vikrant Arora Ms. Shilpi Rathore, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr.Satish Verma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi, on presentation all the cheques were dishonoured by the bank with remark Funds Insufficient . 3. By order dated 2nd April, 2012 the Court take the cognizance of the Complaint of the petitioner and issued Notice to the Respondent No.2. 4. After the notice on the next date of hearing i.e. 2nd June, 2012 respondent No.2 failed to appear before the Court and the Court issued the bailable warrants against the respondent No.2 /Accused. In the meantime on dated 4th October, 2012 the respondent No.2 /Accused appeared before the Metropolitan Magistrate and after taking the bail moved the application under Section 145 (2) of the Act. Again on the next date of hearing the Respondent No.2 failed to appear before the Court and the Court w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction. The trial court in fact did not appreciate that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v/s State of Maharashtra and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009. In their Judgment the Apex Court clearly described that the category of Complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) or post summoning evidence has been started, those case would be tried by the Court where it is presently pending. 7. It is settled law and even otherwise the settlement of the Mediation Cell is deemed to be a decree and cannot be challenged. 8. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law firstly once the matters are settled before the mediation centre, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
