$~31 to 35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2956/2025 M/S HAMSA TRADERS .....Petitioner versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents With W.P.(CRL) 2957/2025, W.P.(CRL) 3011/2025, W.P.(CRL)

3026/2025, W.P.(CRL) 3027/2025 with CRL.M.A. 27441/2025, CRL.M.A. 27446/2025, CRL.M.A.

27876/2025, CRL.M.A. 28010/2025, CRL.M.A. 28012/2025 For Petitioner: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Jha and Mr. Manjeet Kumar Jha, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Shubham Goyal, Mr. Anshu Chothwani and Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocates for State in Item Nos. 30, 31 & 32.

Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Ms. Chavi Lazarus and Ms. Sanskriti Nimbekar, Advocates for State in Item Nos. 33 to 35.

Mr. Adarsh Saini, Advocate for the Complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 11.12.2025

1. These petitions invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek this Court’s intervention in proceedings conducted before JMFC (NI Act), North District, Rohini Courts, in Complaint Cases No. CC NI ACT 1480/2023, CC NI ACT 1824/2023, CC NI ACT 1830/2023, CC NI ACT 1503/2023 and CC NI ACT 1682/2023, titled “M/s Kumar Brothers v. M/s Hamsa Traders & Ors.”. The Petitioners assail the orders dated 26^th May, 2025 and 5^th August, 2025, and also the judgments of conviction dated 23^rd August, 2025 on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, integrity of trial amongst several other grounds. Finding prima facie merit in the contentions urged, this Court had directed the Trial Court to defer the order on sentence. The petitions are now being considered for final disposal.

2. The impugned orders and judgments under challenge arise from separate complaints pertaining to distinct cheques. However, the parties are common, the transactions form part of the same commercial arrangement, and the challenges raised are substantially overlapping. The petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. For convenience, the factual narrative is drawn from Complaint Case No. CC NI ACT 1480/2023, with the clarification that the proceedings in the remaining matters are materially identical, save and except for the particulars of the cheques, the corresponding dates of presentation and dishonour, and the cheque-wise amounts reflected in each complaint.

3. The complainant instituted five complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,¹ premised on the alleged dishonour of cheques issued by the Petitioner firm, M/s Hamsa Traders. Upon service of summons, the Petitioner, along with its proprietor, Mr. Sanath Kumar, appeared and was admitted to bail on 26^th May, 2025. The Trial Court proceeded to frame notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,, “Cr.P.C.” recorded the plea of defence and concluded with admission and denial under Section 294 CrPC.

4. The notice was framed in the following terms:

“NOTICE U/S 251 Cr. P.C.

It is alleged against you Sanath Kumar, Prop. of M/s Hamsa Traders S/o Sh. Maheshwara Murthy (Mobile No. 9880890028), that in discharge of your liabilities/financial obligations towards complainant, you had issued cheque bearing No. 003920 dated 25.06.2023 of Rs. One Crore/ drawn on Union Bank of India, Hunasaghatta branch, Karnataka-577547 under your signatures in favour of the complainant, however, on presentation your banker returned the cheque back unpaid with remarks "Funds Insufficient" vide return memo dated 28.06.2023. It was followed by written demand notice dated 28.06.2023 advising you to pay the cheque amount, however, despite service of such demand notice, you failed to return the cheque amount and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s

138 N.I. Act, 1881 and within the cognizance of this Court.

Show cause why you should not be punished for aforesaid offence The notice has been read over and explained to the accused in vernacular and he is asked as under:-

Q: