DR RITA BAKSHI vs SEEMA BAJAJ & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 18.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 18.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 24.03.2026 + CRL.M.C. 2551/2025 & CRL.M.A. 11417/2025 DR RITA BAKSHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Mr. Bharat Malhotra and Ms. Smritika Kesri, Advocates versus SEEMA BAJAJ & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raajan Chawla, Ms. Pallavi Yadav and Ms. Lavanya Chadha, Advocates Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State along with SI Amisha Kumari CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUDGMENT DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 21.01.2025 [hereafter ‗impugned order‘] passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-03, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‗Magistrate‘] in CT Case No. 2771/2024 titled ‘Dr. Seema Bajaj v. M/s Embryo Health Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’. CRL.M.C. 2551/2025 Page 1 of 30 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:24.03.2026 17:53:32 INTRODUCTION 2. The issue that arises for consideration in the present case pertains to the interpretation of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereafter ‗BNSS‘], and in particular, the scope and effect of the newly introduced first proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS, which mandates that no cognizance of an offence on a complaint shall be taken by the Magistrate without affording the accused, an opportunity of being heard. 3. In the present case, a complaint was filed by the respondent- complainant against eight accused persons, including the present petitioner (accused no. 2), alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/120B/34/35/37 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‗IPC‘]. The matter was briefly heard on 11.