Allowed

Laxmi Lawania v. Asuja Eserv Private Limited

Delhi HC6 Nov 2025CRL.M.C./7062/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a cheque bounce case, noting they were wrongly included despite an order restricting summons to other accused only. Court directed discontinuance of such proceedings and continuation of the case against remaining accused under the original order.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner directed to be discontinued forthwith; Trial Court to continue case against remaining accused as per original order.

Laxmi Lawania Vs Asuja Eserv Private Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 7062/2025, CRL.M.A. 29639/2025, CRL.M.A.

¶4

29640/2025 & CRL.M.A. 29641/2025

¶5

LAXMI LAWANIA .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Akhil Shankhwar, Mr. Vardan Mittal, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

ASUJA ESERV PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shriram Tiwary, Mr. Prafulla, Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocates

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶11

O R D E R % 06.11.2025

¶12

The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² ) seeks quashing of CC NI Act No. 1095/2021 titled as Asuja Eserv Private Limited Vis. Megma RFID and Labels Private Limited and ors. initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881³ before the JMFC (NI Act), THC, Delhi.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn attention to the order dated 06^th October, 2021, wherein, after hearing arguments on the point of summoning, the Trial Court recorded its satisfaction that a prima facie offence under

¶14

1 “BNSS”

¶15

2 “CrPC”

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 10/11/2025 at 16:28:00

¶18

Section 138 of NI Act was made out “ only against Accused Nos. 1 and 2. ” The Court further observed that “no allegation has been made against Accused No. 3 in the complaint” , and accordingly directed that summons be issued only to Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The relevant portion reads as under:

¶19

“Arguments heard on the point of summoning. All the statutory requirements under the NI Act are complied with. The present complaint case is filed within limitation in view of the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 titled as IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION. Complainant has filed the pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit alongwith the relevant documents including the dishonoured cheque, bank return memo, legal notice sent to the accused and proof of sending the legal notice. Upon examination of the evidence affidavit of the complaint and the documents present on record, it is found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, as prescribed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After perusal of the entire record, this Court is of the considered opinion that a prima facie case punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is made out against the accused no. 1 and 2 only. No allegation has been made against accused no.3 in the complaint.

¶20

Issue summons to the accused no.1 and 2 only through approved registered courier, speed post, whatsapp and e-mail for 30.11.2021. Complainant is directed to file PF and take steps within 07 days. Complainant is directed to supply the copy of complete set of documents filed in the court including the evidence affidavit of complainant. Reader cum Ahlmad is directed to issue the summons only after ensuring that the same has been done.”

¶21

It is contented that since no summons were issued against the Petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No. 3, the subsequent issuance of NBWs by the Trial Court on 17^th January, 2022 is wholly unsustainable in law. In the absence of any summoning order against the Petitioner, no proceedings could validly commence or continue against him. The Counsel further submits that although the Petitioner appeared before the Trial Court

¶22

3 “NI Act”

¶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 10/11/2025 at 16:28:00

¶25

under a bona fide but mistaken impression, such appearance cannot cure the jurisdictional defect arising from the lack of a summoning order.

¶26

On 03^rd November, 2025, counsel for the Respondent sought time to verify the above facts. Today, on instructions, it has been confirmed that no summons were issued against the Petitioner.

¶27

In view of the above, it appears that the proceedings against the Petitioner have continued inadvertently and contrary to the original order of summons. Therefore, it is directed that if any proceedings against the Petitioner are still pending before the Trial Court, the same shall be discontinued forthwith.

¶28

With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of. The Trial Court is directed to update its records accordingly and continue the criminal complaint against the remaining accused in accordance with the order of summons dated 6^th October, 2021.

¶29

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶30

NOVEMBER 6, 2025/ab

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 10/11/2025 at 16:28:00

Laxmi Lawania v. Asuja Eserv Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Lawania v. Asuja Eserv Private Limited

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

State Vs Anuradha Alias Chiku

Mangal Pandey Vs State of NCT of Delhi

State Vs Deepa Singh

Neeraj Vs State NCT of Delhi

Vinod Jaiswal @ Binod Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Deepak Kumar Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.