Satish Mehta & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 6456/2025 & CRL.M.A. 27262/2025 STAY

¶4

SATISH MEHTA & ORS. .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, Ms. Tamanna, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with SI Kamal, PS Tuglak Road. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Ms. Aashna Mehra, Mr. Vatsal Tripathi, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

O R D E R % 12.09.2025

¶10

CRL.M.A. 27263/2025 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions

¶12

This application stands disposed of.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 6456/2025

¶14

This is a petition under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the FIR no. 0051/2025 registered under Section 316(2)/318(4)/61(2) of BNS, 2023. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that dispute is predominantly commercial in nature in which Dhruv Mehta (accused no. 1) was appointed as retainer at a monthly remuneration of Rs 50,000/- vide agreement dated 11.01.2024 and a sum of Rs 1,50,000/- was paid in advance by the complainant to Dhruv Mehta and he started rendering services to the

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 16/09/2025 at 12:29:34

¶17

complainant in terms of the written as well as oral instructions given by the complainant.

¶18

It is further submitted that during the period from 18.04.2024 to 30.05.2024, complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 69,75,099/-, out of which Dhruv Mehta returned a sum of Rs. 56,61,850/- through bank transfers in different bank accounts of the complainant and the balance amount is subject to reconciliation of the accounts.

¶19

The Ld. Counsel further states that the dispute is basically civil in nature which is being given criminal colour. He states that petitioners are ready to reconcile the account and return the money, if payable to the complainant.

¶20

The Ld. APP appearing for the State as also the Ld. Counsel, appearing on advance notice for complainant submits that the case is still under investigation and therefore, the petition is premature. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further states that no amount of Rs. 56,61,850/- has been returned to the complainant.

¶21

At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are resident of Gujarat and have to come again and again to Delhi for the purpose of investigation. He states that petitioners would be satisfied if the Investigating Officer is directed to give at least one week notice to the petitioners for joining the investigation. Subject to such direction, being given, he states that petitioners do not want to press the present petition at this stage and therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the petition.

¶22

The statement made by the Ld. Counsel is taken on record and petition is disposed of with direction to the Investigating Officer to give at least one week notice to the petitioner for joining the investigation as and

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 16/09/2025 at 12:29:34

¶25

when required. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open and petitioners would be at liberty to take resort to appropriate remedies as per law at a later stage.

¶26

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶27

SEPTEMBER 12, 2025/lks/na

¶28

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 16/09/2025 at 12:29:34

Satish Mehta & Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Mehta & Ors. v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xxxxx Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rahul Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs the Stte of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Zameer Ahmad & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pratap Singh Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)