Delhi High Court
Sunit Suri vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) And Ors on 26 May, 2025
$~62 & 63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26.05.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 3708/2025, CRL.M.A. 16314/2025 & CRL.M.A.
16313/2025
SUNIT SURI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amitesh Chandra Mishra,
Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for
State.
Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 3709/2025, CRL.M.A. 16316/2025 & CRL.M.A.
16315/2025
SUNIT SURI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amitesh Chandra Mishra,
Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for
State.
Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks invocation of inherent powers of this court to
quash summoning orders dated 05.09.2018 (in CRL.M.C. 3709/2025) and
CRL.M.C. 3708/2025 & CRL.M.C. 3709/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.26 19:34:21
+05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:26.05.2025
19:48:21
06.02.2019 (in CRL.M.C. 3708/2025) passed by the trial magistrate in
proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. It is pleaded,
though not argued that challenge to the summoning orders is on the ground
that the cheques in question were security cheques. That, in any case, would
be a matter of trial.
2. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that he has already paid the
entire cheque amount, but he is not aware as to against which cheque that
amount was paid. In response to a specific query, learned counsel for
petitioner submits that the alleged payment was made by the petitioner to the
respondent on 31.01.2019.
3. Admittedly, the offence in case of CRL.M.C. 3708/2025 took place
on 15.12.2018 when despite expiry of period of statutory notice, the cheque
amount was not paid; and the offence in case of CRL.M.C. 3709/2025 took
place on 30.08.2018.
4. In other words, the alleged payment by the petitioner to the
respondent was done subsequent to committing of the offence in both these
cases. That being so, the said payment would have no bearing on the
criminal liability of the petitioner. It is nobody's case that parties have
compounded the offence.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is
ready and willing to settle the disputes with the complainant (respondent
no.2 herein). But for that, the petitioner ought to have filed an appropriate
CRL.M.C. 3708/2025 & CRL.M.C. 3709/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
+05'30'
application before the Magisterial Court, which is the court of original
jurisdiction in such matters.
6. Even otherwise, there is no explanation for such delayed petitions,
assailing the summoning orders of the year 2018 and 2019.
7. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in these petitions. The
petitions and the accompanying applications are dismissed.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission to try
and settle the disputes before the learned Magisterial Court. The petitioner is
granted liberty, making it clear that the above observations shall not be read
as an impediment in the exercise of settlement between the parties in
accordance with law.
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.26
19:34:48 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MAY 26, 2025/DR
CRL.M.C. 3708/2025 & CRL.M.C. 3709/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
