[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Venugopal N Dhoot vs Religare Finvest Limited & Anr on 24 February, 2026
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24th February, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1509/2026 & CRL.M.A. 6090/2026 & CRL.M.A.
6091/2026
VENUGOPAL N DHOOT
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajneesh Sharma and Mr. Anil
Pandey, Advocates.
versus
RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemant Kumar and Mr.
Bhavishya Mohaniya, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner is defending a complaint filed under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and challenges order dated 06.02.2026
whereby the learned Trial Court, while dismissing his application seeking
exemption from personal appearance, has directed issuance of Non-Bailable
Warrants against him.
2. As per the contents of the abovesaid application, whereby the petitioner
had sought exemption from his personal appearance, the petitioner, a man in
his seventies, is resident of Mumbai and is suffering from multiple health
problems having undergone Coronary Angioplasty and there is insertion of
many stents in his artery and, it was in the abovesaid background, that he had
moved said application seeking his exemption from personal appearance for
that day only.
3. Learned counsel for respondent/complainant appears on advance
notice and, in all fairness, submits that he would not insist for issuance of
coercive process. He, however, submits that let petitioner move appropriate
application seeking his exemption from personal appearance, duly supported
with an affidavit clearly specifying therein that he would not dispute his
identity and would be duly represented through counsel. He, however,
submits that his such concession may not be construed as if he has granted any
no objection to any such request. He reserves his rights to oppose the same.
4. He also, however, submits that the petitioner should come up with
some amicable solution of the complaint, which is pending for quite for some
time.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he would also take
appropriate instructions from his client and would apprise the learned Trial
Court within two weeks, as to whether the matter can be amicably resolved or
not.
6. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of in aforesaid terms and
the order dated 06.02.2026, whereby the warrants have been issued against
the applicant, is re-called.
7. Petitioner is given liberty to move appropriate application afresh and,
after seeking response if any from the complainant, it will be entirely up to the
learned Trial Court to decide such application seeking exemption, in
accordance with law.
8. Needless to say, learned Trial Court would also keep in mind the
provisions of Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 while
considering any such application.
9. The petitioner would also apprise the learned Trial Court, as well as
learned counsel for complainant as to whether the matter can be amicably
resolved or not, and if there is any such possibility, the learned Trial Court
would be at liberty to refer them to mediation.
10. It is, however, clarified that the present order would not prejudice the
mind of the Court while considering the proposed application.
11. The petitioner is, however, exempted from personal appearance for
25.02.2026. His counsel would, though, represent him.
12. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 24, 2026/ss/pb
