MS. MANILA KUNDARA vs SH. AJAY GOYAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 08.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 29.01.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 30.01.2026 + CRL.REV.P. 529/2024, CRL.M.A. 11912/2024 & CRL.M.A. 16515/2024 MS. MANILA KUNDARA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ankur Raghav, Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocates. versus SH. AJAY GOYAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satyanarayan Padhi, Advocate with Mr. Jitender Kumar, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Mr. Arun Kumar Renu and Ms. Babita, Advocates. + CRL.REV.P. 538/2024, CRL.M.A. 12062/2024 & CRL.M.A. 16526/2024 MS. DEEPALI KUNDARA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ankur Raghav, Mr. Saurabh Goel, Advocates. versus SH. AJAY GOYAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satyanarayan Padhi, Advocate with Mr. Jitender Kumar, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Mr. Arun Kumar Renu and Ms. Babita, Advocates. CRL.REV.P.529/2024 & connected matter Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:30.01.2026 13:36:39 CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUDGMENT DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J 1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall dispose of both the captioned petitions, arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances. 2. The petitioners herein have assailed their convictions for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereafter „NI Act‟], in CT Case Nos. 1523/2016 (Ajay Goyal vs. Deepali Kundra & Ors.) and 1626/2016 (Ajay Goyal vs. Manila Kundra & Ors.). FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent and the accused persons/petitioners shared prior business relations, pursuant to which the petitioners herein had purchased jewellery articles from the complainant in June 2014, for a total v