$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 115/2026, CRL.M.A. 5704/2026, CRL.M.(BAIL)

393/2026 SMT GUNMALA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Mr. Vikas Ashwini and Mr. Yashpriya Sahran, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the State.

SI Sumit, P.S.: Subzi Mandi.

Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Mr.

Moksh Arora and Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 19.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 5705/2026 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed-of.

CRL.M.A. 5706/2026 By way of the present application filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), the petitioners seek leave to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates and events.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavits, the application is allowed.

3. The lengthy synopsis and list of dates and events are taken on record.

4. The application stands disposed-of.

CRL.REV.P. 115/2026 CRL.M.A. 5704/2026 (stay)

CRL.M.(BAIL) 393/2026 (suspension of sentence)

5. By way of the present petition filed under section 442 of the BNSS, the petitioner inter-alia seeks setting-aside of impugned judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dismissing the appeal bearing CA No.145/2022 filed against judgment of conviction dated 04.11.2020 and sentencing order dated 25.06.2022 passed by the learned trial court.

6. By judgment dated 04.11.2020, the petitioners were convicted of the offence under section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Companies Act’). Vidé sentencing order dated 25.06.2022, the petitioners were inter-alia directed to deposit fine of Rs.01 lac each with the court within 60 days of the passing of that order, with a default simple imprisonment of 03 months. The fine amount was awarded as compensation to respondent No.2 (complainant before that court); and the petitioners were also directed to hand-over vacant, peaceful, and physical possession of Quarter No. G-13, Type-II, Tripolia Colony, Delhi (‘subject property’) to respondent No.2 within 09 months from the date of that order, with default simple imprisonment of 03 months.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the husband of petitioner No.1 (father of petitioner No.2) was an employee of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (‘DESU’), which subsequently changed to Delhi Vidyut Board (‘DVB’), and the enterprise and business were subsequently transferred to respondent No.2-M/s.

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.

8. Mr. Kaushik argues that petitioner No.1’s husband was never an employee of respondent No.2; and in fact he had retired from the services of DESU in 1989 and passed away in 2003.

9. It is argued that the petitioners have been continuing in possession of the subject property based on an administrative decision taken by the then Chief Minister, Delhi, as reflected in communication dated 20.08.2015, a copy of which is appended as Annexure A-25 to the petition, whereby status-quo was to be maintained with respect to the occupation of premises by retired employees of the erstwhile DESU after its privatization, by which their right to reside in the colony was protected.

10. Mr. Kaushik argues, that regardless of any other remedy in civil law that may be available to respondent No.2 to seek eviction of the petitioners from the subject property, the criminal remedy contained in section 452 of the Companies Act cannot be invoked against the petitioners since that remedy is available only against an ‘officer’ or ‘employee’ of the ‘company’; and in the present case, petitioner No.1’s husband was never an ‘employee’ of respondent No.2 and his employer DESU was not a ‘company’.

11. Issue notice.

12. Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, learned APP for the State; and learned counsel for r