* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 07, 2026 % Pronounced on: February 09, 2026 + CRL.REV.P. 633/2024 OMPAL YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Pahuja and Mr. Upender Kumar, Advocates.

Versus FARHAN EMPEXO EXPORT AND IMPORT CO. .Respondent Through: Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. H. Rehman, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present petition filed under Section(s) 401/ 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Hereinafter as “Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner/ convict/ revisionist, Hereinafter as “petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 10.04.2024, Hereinafter as “impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (05), South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, Hereinafter as “learned ASJ in the Criminal Appeal No.79/2022 entitled ‘Ompal Yadav vs. Farhan Empexo Export and Import Co.’, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and order on sentence dated 26.04.2022 and 07.05.2022 respectively passed in a complaint made by the complainant/ respondent, Hereinafter as “respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Hereinafter as “N.I. Act passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, Hereinafter as “learned Trial Court was upheld.

2. Succinctly put, on request of the petitioner, the respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.05.2009, Hereinafter as “MoU [Ex.CW-1/A with the petitioner’s brother, one Mr. Gajender Singh, to jointly construct the property bearing kharsa no.287 situated at Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025, by investing funds with profits from its sale to be shared proportionately after deduction of expenses, interest, and remuneration. After construction, the petitioner and his brother sold the property without the consent of the respondent and failed to pay the respondent’s share of profits as per the MoU.

3. In order to discharge his liability, the petitioner issued Cheque No.563207 dated 14.03.2017, Hereinafter as “Cheque Ex. CWI/B for Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Standard Chartered Bank Branch, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, which was dishonoured on 18.05.2017 with the remark “Account Closed.”. Pursuant thereto, despite receipt of the statutory Legal Notice dated 07.06.2017 by the petitioner, as the same remained unanswered, the respondent filed a Complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. Subsequently, the respondent led pre-summoning evidence and after the petitioner entered appearance, he pleaded not guilty and, thereafter the respondent examined one Mr. Nafees Ahmed [CW-2] and one Mr. Bilal Saif [CW-3] in post-summoning evidence and they were cross-examined as well. More so, although the petitioner did not lead any evidence, however, in his Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he averred before the learned Trial Court, inter alia, that the Cheque being [Ex. CWI/B] was stolen by the respondent from his house and there was no ‘legally enforceable debt’, since the respondent was not privy to the MoU being [Ex.CW-1/A], as also the same was executed in the year 2009, whereas, the said Complaint was filed in the year 2016, which, as per the petitioner, was barred by limitation.

5. Upon completion of trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 26.04.2022 and sentenced him vide order on sentence dated 07.05.2022 whereby it was directed that the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.12,50,000/-, payable to the respondent within one month from the date of the said order, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

6. In an appeal bearing no.79/2022 preferred by the petitioner under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C., the learned ASJ, upheld the aforesaid order of the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2024.

7. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present revisi