In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of a conviction order dated 22-01-2025 and sentencing orders dated 17-11-2025 and 18-11-2025 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan suspended the sentencing orders till the next date of hearing and issued notice to the respondent for the submission of an affidavit regarding the settlement between the parties.
The respondent was a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in Delhi and engaged in the business of financial services and allied activities. The respondent company maintained a share trading account with Aditya Birla Money Limited (Brokerage Firm). In 2014, the brokerage firm allegedly purchased certain shares in the respondent’s trading account without their consent. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that the transaction took place in connivance with the petitioner.
The petitioner admitted the said transactions and offered to indemnify the loss arising from them, amounting to Rs. 43,00,000/-. To discharge said liability, the petitioner issued four account-payee cheques drawn on ICICI Bank. The respondent presented the cheques for encashment; however, they were dishonoured and returned unpaid with the remark ‘funds insufficient’.
Thereafter, the respondent issued a legal demand notice requiring the petitioner to pay the cheque amounts within 15 days. After expiry of 15 days, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138, read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Rohini District Court, Delhi, wherein it was observed that the complaint fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Meanwhile, the respondent approached the police to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against the associates of the brokerage firm. The brokerage firm filed a petition seeking quashing of said FIR, and the same was quashed vide judgment dated 01-11-2017. Upon conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted of offences under Section 138 of the NI Act by the impugned order.
By order dated 17-11-2025, a sentence was passed against the petitioner, but an ad-interim suspension was granted to him with liberty to file an appeal. On the same day, the petitioner filed a bail bond under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and was granted bail. Thereafter, a reasoned sentencing order was passed on 18-11-2025.
Through compromise, the parties settled the dispute, and the petitioner agreed to pay a total of Rs. 1.20 crores by way of demand drafts. Hence, the present petition was filed seeking the quashing of the impugned orders.
It was submitted before the Court that an affidavit of the complainant regarding said settlement would be filed on the next date of hearing, and his presence would be ensured.
The Court directed that notice be issued to the respondent and suspended the sentencing orders dated 17-11-2025 and 18-11-2025 till the next date of hearing, based on the bail bond presented by the petitioner before the Trial Court.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Mr. Samarth Kasana Panwar, Mr. Yash Saxena, Ms. Varnika Singh
For Respondent – None
