$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 17.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 24.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 24.03.2026 + CRL.M.C. 7928/2024 YASIV@YASIR ZAIDI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Mr.

Anubhav Lamba and Mr.

Shubham Singh, Advocates versus MAN MOHAN ARORA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Dipanshu Krishan, Mr.

Karan Batura, Mr. Anmol Srivastava and Ms. Tanvi Sapra, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 07.09.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Court, South-East District, New Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court‟] in Criminal Revision No. 243/2024, whereby the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, New Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in CC No. 2644/2017 was upheld.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereafter „NI Act‟] against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had obtained a loan of ₹24,00,000/- from the respondent in September, 2016, repayable within one month. Towards partial discharge of the said liability, the petitioner is stated to have issued a cheque bearing no. 001929 dated 13.11.2016, drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road Branch, New Delhi, for an amount of ₹6,00,000/-. It is the case of the respondent that, upon the petitioner seeking time on account of financial difficulties, the cheque was initially not presented; however, after waiting for about three months, the same was presented on 13.01.2017. The cheque was dishonoured for the reason „Insufficient Funds‟, as per the cheque return memo dated 13.01.2017 issued by HDFC Bank. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 10.02.2017 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner, which, as per the respondent, was duly served on 11.02.2017. Since the amount remained unpaid, the respondent instituted the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

3. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 19.07.2017, summoned the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance through counsel on 11.10.2018. Thereafter, on 25.02.2019, notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. was framed and the plea of the petitioner was recorded, wherein he stated as under:

“Q1 Was the dishonored cheque issued by you?

Ans. No. The cheque in question does not bear my signatures and the other particulars therein have not been filled by me.

***

Q4 Do you want to say anything else?

Ans. Yes. I had introduced some clients to the complainant and he had some business dealings directly with the said persons. The complainant suffered some loss in the same and now he wants to recover the said loss from me. The cheque in question was lying with the complainant in blank as I was earlier working as a partner with him which now have been misused. Total 5 cheques were with the complainant of which 4 have been misused till now. I have nothing to pay to the complainant and this is a false case.”

4. On the same date, an oral request made by the petitioner under Section 145(2) of the NI Act was allowed, and the matter was listed for cross-examination of the complainant on 04.07.2019. However, on several dates thereafter, adjournments or exemptions were sought on behalf of the petitioner, resulting in the complainant not being cross-examined. Consequently, vide order dated 10.03.2023, the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent was closed, with a direction that in the event of failure to lead defence evidence, the matter would proceed to final arguments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition (CR No. 191/2023), which came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated

26.07.2023.

5. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.08.2023, the matter was listed for defence evidence. On 08.04.2024, the peti