$~J-1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 12.11.2025 Judgment delivered on: 15.01.2026 + CRL.M.C. 8417/2023, CRL.M.A. 31444/2023, CRL.M.A.

15187/2024 RAVINDRA DHARIWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Adv with Mr. Petrushka Das Gupta, Mr. Mridul Yadav, Mr. Raghav Mittal, Mr Shaurya Singh & Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar & Ms. Kashvi Bansal, Advs. versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishnavi Viswanathan, Adv. for R-1.

+ CRL.M.C. 8431/2023, CRL.M.A. 31481/2023 & CRL.M.A.

15190/2024 KISHORE LAXMNARAYAN BIYANI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Adv with Mr. Petrushka Das Gupta, Mr. Mridul Yadav, Mr. Raghav Mittal, Mr Shaurya Singh & Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar & Ms. Kashvi Bansal, Advs. versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishnavi Viswanathan, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC praying quashing of summoning order dated 24.01.2023 whereby the petitioners were summoned to stand trial for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [in short „N.I. Act‟].

2. Further prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 23.05.2023 whereby the petitioners were directed to furnish their bail bonds.

3. The aforesaid orders came to be passed in complaint under Section 138 NI Act being CC No.3106/2022 titled as Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Future Retail Ltd. & Ors. which is stated to be pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), (N.I. Act), West District, Digital Court-01, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi.

4. The case set out in the present petition is that the petitioners herein were the directors of respondent no.2/company namely, M/S Future Retail Ltd. (hereinafter „the company‟). The said company had availed credit facility from respondent no.1/bank, against which undated cheques were issued to respondent no.1/bank.

5. The aforesaid complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act filed by respondent no.1/bank pertains to two such cheques issued to it by the company, the details of which are as under:

(i) Cheque No.081660 for an amount of Rs.3,48,39,892.00.

(ii) Cheque No.081659 for an amount of Rs.50,00,00,000.00.

6. The aforesaid two cheques were presented for encashment by respondent no.1/bank, but the same were returned unpaid with the cheque return memo dated 29.04.2022 with the remarks “kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and present again”.

7. Respondent no.1/bank, once again presented the said two cheques on 01.07.2022 for clearing, however, the cheques were again returned unpaid by the drawee bank with a cheque return memo dated 02.07.2022, containing the same remarks. This was followed by issuance of demand notice dated 14.07.2022 by respondent no.1/bank, which got dispatched on 21.07.2022, in terms of Section 138 of N.I. Act, to respondent no.2/company, as well as, to the petitioners.

8. As per the case of respondent no.1/bank in its complaint, the said notices were received by the petitioners between 23.07.2022 and 26.07.2022. Since the payment was not made within a period of 15 days from the receipt of notice, as stipulated therein, respondent no.1/bank filed complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 02.09.2022.

9. Thereafter, the two impugned orders came to be passed.

10. Mr. Madhav Khurana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that a petition under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [in short, „IBC‟] against the respondent no.2/company was admitted by the NCLT vide its order dated 20.07.2022 which led to initiation of CIRP against it.

11. Further, vide same order, Interim Resolution Professional [hereinafter, referred as “IRP”] was also appointed, and the moratorium in terms of Section 14(1) of IBC came into play.

12. He submits that even taking the earliest date i.e. 23.07.2022 as date of service of demand notice dated 14.