OM LUNGI HOUSE vs CHHABRA SAREE SELECTION

Judgment text excerpt

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 30th January, 2025 + CRL.M.C. 2687/2021 1. OM LUNGI HOUSE 2. ANIL NARANG 3. PRAVEEN NARANG 4. MANOJ NARANG .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Katickay Mathur and Mr. Shanker Kashyap, Advocates. versus CHHABRA SAREE SELECTION .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. A Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) has been filed for setting aside the Order dated 21.10.2019 vide which the learned M.M had dismissed the Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused. 2. Briefly stated, a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act”) was filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2687/2021 Page 1 of 5 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:07.02.2025 18:25:30 Respondent/Complainant which culminated in Judgment dated 11.09.2018 and Order on Sentence dated 18.09.2018. 3. An Appeal was preferred, which was allowed by the learned ASJ vide Judgment dated 16.10.2018 by observing that the Statement of Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C had not been recorded and the Judgment and Order on Sentence were set aside and case was remanded back for doing the needful. 4. While learned M.M was seized of the remanded case, it was realized that the Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. had been framed against three Partners but not against the Partnership Firm/Complainant. Consequently, a fresh Notice was also framed against the Partnership Firm M/s Om Lungi House on 06.09.2019. Thereafter, the matter has been listed for final arguments. 5. The accused had filed an Application for re-examination