$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8996/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37599/2025 L.R. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parag Tripathi, Mr. Pawan Narang, , Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Mr. Anish Dewan, Mr. Abhishek Mishra , Ms. Muskan Puri and Ms. Bhumika Popli, Advs.

versus MR. KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sujoy Datta, Mr. Kartik Malhotra and Mr. Abhishek Chhabra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025 CRL.M.A. 37600/2025, CRL.M.A. 37601/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37602/2025 (Exemptions)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 8996/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37599/2025 (Stay)

3. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned ASJ 04, Tis Hazari Courts (Central), in Crl. Revision no. 638/2025, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent was held to be maintainable, and the trial with respect to the Section 452(2) Companies Act, 2013, application instituted by the petitioner was stayed to the extent of passing of any final orders until the next date of hearing in the same revision petition before the learned ASJ, i.e., 23.04.2026.

4. A succinct reproduction of facts, as gathered from the order under challenge, is that a complaint was filed under Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023, by the petitioner, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 452 (1)/ 447/ 448 of the Companies Act, along with Sections

316/318/319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

5. The learned ACJM (Spl. Act), Central, vide order dated 06.10.2025, summoned accused nos. 1 to 5 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 452 of the Companies Act.

6. It is this order, which has been assailed in revision before the learned ASJ 04, it is noted that in the interregnum between filing of the revision petition and the pronouncement of the impugned order, the petitioner filed Crl. MC no. 8092/2025 before this Court, wherein this Court directed the revisional court to take up and decide the issue of maintainability of the revision petition at the first instance vide order dated 17.11.2025.

7. It was based on these directions that the impugned order had been passed.

8. At the outset, the learned ASJ chose to discuss the implications of the amendments incorporated into the Companies Act in 2021 on the jurisdictional maintainability of the revision petition. The revisional court, for this purpose, referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Kannan Devan Hills Plantaations v Anthony Das & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine Kerala 6871

9. Thereafter, at paragraph 17 of the impugned order, the learned ASJ held that offences under Section 452 of the Companies Act may be tried by the jurisdictional magistrate, per the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, at the place where the offence is said to have been committed. The learned ASJ held that the committee set up by the Delhi High Court vide order dt. 15.10.2009 to deal with cases arising from special acts (including the Companies Act), and that this allocation of work was purely administrative and could not be equated with a specific court, as a statutory notification under Section 435 of the Companies Act would be required for the same, and that this allocation was prior to the coming into force of the Companies Act and subsequent amendment.

10. The learned ASJ held, at paragraph 20 of the order under challenge, that the sum and substance of the discussion on the amendment to the Companies Act and notification of this Court was to conceive that an offence under Section 452 of the Companies Act could be said to have been committed at the place of the registered office of the company, or, at the place where the property is situated, and that this conclusion is sustained through a reading of Section 178 of the CrPC.

11. It was