$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 9004/2025 RAJA DAVINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given.

versus UNIVERSAL BLUE REALTECH PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025 CRL.M.A. 37632/2025

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 9004/2025

3. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner for setting aside impugned Order dated 27.11.2025 of learned JMFC (NI ACT)-07, Delhi, whereby Application filed on behalf of the Accused seeking rejection of the documents filed by the Complainant on 28.09.2024 as well as 15.05.2025, was allowed. 4. It is submitted that Complaint under Section 138/142 NI Act was filed by the Complainant Company in respect of dishonor of cheque of the Petitioner accused, through its Authorized representative Sh. Jitendra Jain.

5. Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Delhi vide Order dated 12.07.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 327 of 2025 set aside the impugned Orders of the Ld. JMFC (N.I. Act)-07 dated 15.05.2025 and 23.05.2025 whereby the documents filed by the Complainant were allowed.

6. Respondent challenged the Order of Ld. PDSJ dated 12.07.2025 before this Court and this Court disposed of that Petition vide Order dated 18.09.2025, directing for adjudicating the Complaint Case, within six months. 7. Ld. JMFC vide Order dated 27.11.2025, accepted the Application for rejecting the additional documents filed by the Respondents.

8. An Application under Sections 348 read with Section 94 of B.N.S.S. was filed on 01.12.2025 for bringing on record Account Statements and for calling a witness for cross-examination, for proper adjudication of the matter. 9. Ld. JMFC vide Order dated 05.12.2025 without considering the merits of the Application and solely relying on the previous proceedings of the predecessor court and the “request” of this Court, dismissed the Application dated 01.12.2025 with a cost of Rs.25,000/-.

10. The grounds for challenging the impugned Orders dated 27.11.2025 and 05.12.2025, are that the Petitioner wants to bring on record the documents since 2022, which are pertinent not only relevant to his defence, but also for arriving at the real truth and for a just decision in the case. It has not been appreciated that Applications under Section 311 were dismissed in 2022 and 2023, as there was no document to prove the connection between the transaction of Dharamvir and the Petitioner. Documents that could prove the connection, were brought on record by the Respondent Company’s bank PNB in 2024, which amounts to a new fact brought on record. This also reveals that the Respondent has not come to the Court with clean hands and had concealed the real truth from the Court.

11. Ld. JMFC refused to consider that the Application for rejecting the documents brought on record by the Respondents, without appreciating that it was filed only because the proper procedure of law was not followed, and an essential right of the Petitioner arose qua those documents, at the time of cross-examination of the witness in respect of those documents, which would bring necessary details for just adjudication of the matter. The Application nowhere said that the documents were not required for the adjudication of the case. Instead, it even vehemently pleaded that the Petitioner has been trying to bring on record the said documents and the parties to whom the record is attributed.

12. Ld. JMFC failed to understand the prayer of the Petitioner, wherein it had strongly pleaded the reasons why these documents were necessary for the case record following proper procedure, but solely relied on the stance of the predecessor Judges, who had denied the relevance of these records, for the lack of proof to show why the transactions were interconnected. The essential facts have been overlooked that it wa