CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2018 › M/S Bhangu Trading Company v. Surjit Singh Through Lrs.

M/S Bhangu Trading Company v. Surjit Singh Through Lrs.

Supreme Court of India · 2 July 2018

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
2 July 2018
Case no.
Crl.A. No. 808-809 of 2018
Bench
Kurian Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Author
Kurian Joseph
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 808-809/2018

(ARISING FROM SLP (CRL) NOS.4687-4688/2018)

M/S BHANGU TRADING COMPANY & ANR. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SURJIT SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants are before this Court aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel appearing for the original complainant, the respondent(s) herein, submits that subsequent to the judgment of the High Court the parties have settled their disputes and the cheque amount has been received.

3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the view that since the parties have settled the disputes, to do complete justice, the disputes should be given a quietus, subject to appropriate terms.

4. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant(s) is set aside. The appellant(s) are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs to the State Legal Services Authority, within a period of three weeks from today.

5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] .......................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] NEW DELHI; JULY 02, 2018.

Ask CaseMinister about M/S Bhangu Trading Company v. Surjit Singh Through Lrs.

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp