Delhi High Court - Orders
Getamber Anand And Others vs Vaibhav Raheja on 7 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5334/2025, CRL.M.A. 22983/2025 & CRL.M.A.
22984/2025
GETAMBER ANAND AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Krish Kalra, Mr. Vaibhav Luthra,
Advocates
versus
VAIBHAV RAHEJA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Suryansh Vashisht, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.08.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731) assails order dated 29th April, 20252 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) Digital Court-01, South, Saket Courts closing the right to file an application under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The proceedings arise from a complaint [CC NI Act 121/2020] instituted by the Respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against ATS Infrastructure Limited (Petitioner No. 4), through its Chairman, Getamber Anand (Petitioner No. 1) and Directors, Puneet Arora (Petitioner No. 2) and Udaivir Anand (Petitioner No. 3).
1"Cr.P.C"2
"the impugned order"CRL.M.C. 5334/2025 Page 1 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 23:40:57
3. Mr. Krish Kalra, counsel for the Petitioners, submits that proceedings against Petitioners No. 1 and 3 are kept in abeyance pursuant to order dated 11th February, 2025 passed by this Court in CRL. M.C. 868/2025, owing to insolvency proceedings initiated against them. The said order also directs continuation of proceedings against the Company and remaining directors. He contends that despite this, the Trial Court, by way of the impugned order, has erroneously closed the Petitioners' right to file an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
4. Upon query of the Court as to why Petitioners No. 1 and 3 have been impleaded in the present petition, Mr. Kalra submits that they have been joined only for the "fitness of things," thereby giving the impression that they are merely proforma parties. However, this submission is at contrary to the pleadings, particularly paragraph No. 1 of the petition, which expressly states that the petition is jointly filed by all Petitioners assailing the impugned order.
5. In order to seek clarity and confirm the true position, Petitioner No. 2 was directed to remain present before the Court at 2:30 PM today.
6. In the post lunch session, Mr. Puneet Arora appeared before the Court. At that stage, Mr. Kalra clarified that previously he had received incorrect instructions. This stand now taken by Mr. Kalra contradicts his earlier submissions.
7. Be that as it may, Mr. Kalra, reiterates that the impugned order closes the Petitioners' right to file an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C despite the operation of a stay order.
8. The impugned order reads as follows:
"Application u/s 315 CrPC not filed. On the LDOH, last and final CRL.M.C. 5334/2025 Page 2 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 23:40:57 opportunity was given for the same. As the same has not been filed despite giving last and final opportunity, the right to file application stands closed.
Put up for further proceedings/final arguments on 24.05.2025 at 02:00 PM."
9. The impugned order makes a reference to the previous date of hearing wherein final opportunity was granted to file an application and accordingly, the Court queried from Mr. Kalra regarding the proceedings which transpired on the said date. In response, a copy of the order dated 21st April, 2025 has been handed over across the Board and is taken on record. The said order reads as follows:
"Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the main counsel Mr. Krish Kalra has met with an accident, thereby he seeks an adjournment. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant has submitted that as now there is a judgment of Rakesh Bhanot Vs. M/s Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. Criminal Appeal No. 1607 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6087 of 2023) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court qua Section 96 IBC, he has filed an application before the Hon'ble High Court for vacating the stay of accused no. 2 & 4.
Submissions heard.
Perusal of the case file shows that matter is pending for filing application u/s 315 CrPC. Ld. Counsel for accused is informed that the proceedings are only stayed qua accused no. 2 & 4 and are continued qua the other accused persons. Last and final opportunity is given to him to file the same failing which the matter will be proceeded ahead.
Considering the same, put up for further proceedings on 29.04.2025."
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. A perusal of the above order affirms that the Trial Court is conscious of the stay operating in favour of Petitioners No. 1 and 3 (Accused No. 2 and
4). In fact, the Court expressly records this and informs the counsel representing the remaining accused accordingly. It is evident, therefore, that proceedings are continuing only against Petitioners No. 2 and 4 (Accused No. 3 and 1) and the opportunity to file an application was granted only to CRL.M.C. 5334/2025 Page 3 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 23:40:57 Petitioners No. 2 and 4.
11. Thus, there remains no ambiguity that the impugned order dated 29 th April, 2025, closing the right to file an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C., operates only qua Petitioners No. 2 and 4.
12. Mr. Kalra submits that if another opportunity is granted, the Petitioners No. 2 and 4 would file the said application without fail.
13. Counsel for the Respondent strongly opposes the request made in the application.
14. The record reflects that the Trial Court had initially granted an opportunity to Petitioners No. 2 and 4 to file an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C by order dated 23rd January, 2025. However, their continued failure to avail of the same has resulted in the closure of their right. In the opinion of the Court, any further indulgence at this stage must be conditioned upon payment of costs.
15. Accordingly, Petitioners No. 2 and 4 are permitted to file an application under Section 315 of Cr.P.C within a period of one week from today, subject to a joint cost of INR 1,00,000/- to be paid to the Respondent.
16. With the above direction, the present petition is disposed of.
17. It is clarified that the Court has not commented on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 7, 2025/ab CRL.M.C. 5334/2025 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 23:40:57