RAJNI VERMA vs SH UMESH KALIA

Judgment text excerpt

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 06th January, 2026 + CRL.REV.P.(NI) 1/2026 & CRL.M.A. 273/2026& CRL.M.A. 274/2026 & CRL.M.A. 275/2026 & CRL.M.A. 276/2026 & CRL.M.A. 277/2026 RAJNI VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar Bansal with Mr.Aditya Verma and Mr. Deep Soni, Advocates. versus SH UMESH KALIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Agha Haider, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The situation in the present case is little unusual. 2. The petitioner faced a complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Such complaint resulted in conviction and the order of sentence was pronounced on 20.02.2024. On that day, the convict was also present before the learned Trial Court along with her counsel and the learned Trial Court sentenced her to the imprisonment till rising of the Court (TRC) and burdened her with compensation of Rs.86,499/-. 3. Aggrieved by the abovesaid order, an appeal was filed before the Court of Sessions. 4. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the sentence was suspended by the learned Court of Sessions. However, during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner suffered paralysis and brain hemorrhage and, therefore, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P.(NI) 1/2026 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:07.01.2026 17:03:49 she was unable to appear before the learned Appellate Court. She was advised bed rest and when the medical documents were placed before the learned Appellate Court, the learned Appellate Court, noticing that no bed rest had been advised, refused to recall coercive process and directed issuance of notice to the Process Server for recording of his statement in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C. 5. The next date before the learned Appellat