AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anita Chaudhary, J.—On the last date of hearing, there were directions to the complainant-Naresh Chand to furnish an affidavit regarding encashment of the demand drafts mentioned in receipt (Annexure P-2). The affidavit has not been filed but his counsel admits encashment by the complainant in lieu of cheque Nos. 190277 and 190278.
The counsel for the petitioners states that when the entire cheque amount has been received only the matter is to be compounded and they were ready to pay additional cost which may be calculated as per the decision laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.,
The counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 states that the petitioners were directed to appear before the trial Court over a year ago but they have failed to appear.
Counsel for the petitioners states that they would put in appearance before the trial Court and would file an application for compounding the matter and they would also pay the amount of additional cost as per Damodar S. Prabhu''s case (supra).
In view of this, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the trial Court and file an application for compounding the matter. The trial Court would pass appropriate orders of compounding.
This order, however, will not in any manner prejudice the rights of the complainant to recover any additional amount by adopting the due process of law.