Dismissed

Mr.Manu Garg v. Pritish Aggarwal

Delhi HC11 Sept 2024CRL.M.C./2930/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that the petition was barred by delay and laches, noting the petitioner had already appeared and obtained bail in 2020. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue alternate efficacious remedies.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to pursue remedy before the appropriate forum.

Mr.Manu Garg Vs Pritish Aggarwal — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2930/2024 & CRL.M.A. 11195/2024

¶4

MR.MANU GARG .....Petitioner Through: None.

¶5

versus

¶6

PRITISH AGGARWAL .....Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶8

¶9

O R D E R 11.09.2024

¶10

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No.2924/2019 under Section 138 of N.I.Act pending in the Court of learned M.M, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

¶11

It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner had no role to play in the issuance of cheques on behalf of the company and the entire complaint is liable to be quashed against him.

¶12

The contents of the petition reflect that the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act was filed in which pre-summoning evidence was recorded on 09.11.2019 and the petitioner was summoned as one of the Directors of the accused Company, along with other Directors. The petitioner appeared before the learned M.M and was admitted to bail on 04.06.2020.

¶13

Though the relief has been framed for quashing of the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:33:34

¶15

complaint case but it is evident from the averments made in the Writ Petition that the cognizance was taken on the Complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act way back in 2019. Pursuant to the summoning, the petitioner has already appeared and taken bail on 04.06.2020. Though couched in the manner that the compliant itself is liable to be rejected, but the perusal of the complaint shows that there are specific averments that petitioner along with other Directors were involved in the day-to-day affairs of the Company.

¶16

It is essentially the summoning Order which is sought to be challenged by way of present Writ Petition filed on 04.11.2020. It not only suffering from delay and laches in challenging the Order of 2020, but there is also an alternate efficacious remedy that was available to the petitioner.

¶17

In the circumstances, petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the appropriate forum.

¶18

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶19

SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 rk

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:33:34

Mr.Manu Garg v. Pritish Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Manu Garg v. Pritish Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Shankar and Ors. Vs State Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs State of Nct, Delhi & Anr.

Heaven Lounge Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Gnctd & Anr.

Sanjay Tyagi Vs State through SHO Police Station South Vasant Kunj

Mohd Umar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Imran Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.