Writ petition concerning production of documents before the Trial Court in a compounding/quashing context. Citing Sanjay Kumar and Prakash Kumar Gupta decisions, respondent agreed to extend similar benefits; petition was disposed of with consent of petitioner's counsel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~10
VIVEK NAGPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Siddharth Luthra, Sr.Adv. with Mudit Jain, Mr.Rose Verma, Ms. Mahima Malhotra and Mr.Kartikey Dang, Advs. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr.Rakesh Kumar CGSC with Mr.Sunil Arora, Advs. Mr.Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr.A.S. Shera, Mr.Sarthak Malhotra, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr. Bharat Khurana, Mr. Sarthak Malhotra, Mr.Himanshu Singh and Ms. Shivangi Shokeen, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
O R D E R
%
11.09.2025
“10 . The fact that there is no direction by the Supreme Court to the SEBI in Prakash Gupta (supra) to produce the documents does not mean that the Court does not have the
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 16/10/2025 at 14:32:54
power under Section 91 to summon these documents. In fact, the SEBI, in its reply, has stated that it does not have any objection in producing the documents before the Court if the Court wants to see the documents. In the considered opinion of this Court, the documents will be necessary for the Court to consider the application of the Petitioner to quash the complaint in view of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
…….……………………. …………………………..
14. In view of the above, the materials sought by the Petitioner become exceedingly important for the Court to take a decision as to allow or not allow the compounding application of the Petitioner.
15. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the Order dated 26.11.2021, passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 91 Cr. P.C. The SEBI is directed to produce all the documents before the Court. These documents can be given in a sealed cover, and it is for the Court to take a decision as to whether these documents should be supplied to the Petitioner or not.”
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 16/10/2025 at 14:32:54
Court for its due consideration.
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
MANOJ JAIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2025 neelam/nc
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 16/10/2025 at 14:32:54
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should receive the same treatment as granted in Sanjay Kumar regarding production of documents by the Trial Court under Section 91 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Kumar vs. Securities and Exchange Board of IndiaRelied on¶5
2025 SCC OnLine Del 161 · Who else cites this
Prakash Kumar Gupta vs. Securities and Exchange Board of IndiaRelied on¶5
2021 SCC OnLine SC 485 · Who else cites this
Vivek Nagpal
Union of India
Respondent No. 2
Vivek Chaudhary
Manoj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
