Delhi District Court
Usha Goel And Anr vs M/S Health Care At Home India Pvt Ltd on 8 July, 2025
DLND10093332024 Page 1 of 6
CR No.637/24
Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs.
M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.637/24
In the matter of :-
1. Usha Goel
W/o. Sh. Hari Kishan Goel
R/o. C-7, First Floor, Block C,
Vivek Vihar, Phase-1,
East Delhi, Delhi-110093 ...Revisionist No.1
(accused before the Ld. Trial Court)
2. Basant Goel
W/o. Sh. Hari Kishan Goel
Goel Medicos,
8A/460, Durgapuri Extension
Loni Road, Shahdara,
Delhi-110093
e-mail id : [email protected]
Phone no.:9958574444 ...Revisionist No.2
(accused before the Ld. Trial Court)
(Both the accused represented
by Sh. Tarun Nanda, Advocate)
Versus
M/s. Health Care at Home India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its authorised representative/signatory,
4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan,
10 Rouse Avenue, Central Delhi,
New Delhi-110092
e-mail : [email protected]
Contact No.011-49854426 .........Respondent
(Represented by Ms.
Garima and Ms.
Yashita Rastogi,
Advocates)
Digitally
SAURABH signed by
PARTAP SAURABH
SINGH PARTAP
LALER SINGH
DLND10093332024 Page 2 of 6
CR No.637/24
Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs.
M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 438 BNSS 2023
Date of institution : 20.11.2024
Date when judgment reserved : 05.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.07.2025
JUDGMENT:-
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the Petitioners, Smt. Usha Goel (Petitioner No. 1) and Sh. Basant Goel (Petitioner No. 2), seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Padma Ladol, Ld. JMFC-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2147/2019 titled "M/s Healthcare at Home India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goel Medicos." The impugned order allowed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), filed by the Respondent, summoning Petitioner No. 1 as an additional accused in the said complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). Background of the Case :
2. The Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act on 06.02.2019 against Goel Medicos, alleging dishonor of a cheque issued in part discharge of liability, which was returned unpaid on 19.12.2018 with the remark "funds insufficient." Initially, Sh. Basant Goel (Petitioner No. 2) was arrayed as the sole proprietor of Goel Medicos. However, an application filed by Petitioner No. 2 on 27.11.2019 under Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act clarified that Smt. Usha Goel (Petitioner No. 1) was the actual sole proprietor of Goel DLND10093332024 Page 3 of 6 CR No.637/24 Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs. M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
Medicos. Despite this, the Respondent moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 15.12.2023, seeking to implead Petitioner No. 1 as an additional accused, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 03.09.2024, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Petitioners' Contentions :
3. The Petitioners submit that the Respondent was aware of Smt. Usha Goel being the sole proprietor of Goel Medicos as early as 25.04.2019, when the Respondent filed a recovery suit (CS No. 360/2019, later CS (Comm) 256/2020) naming Smt. Usha Goel as the sole proprietor.
Further, the application under Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act filed on 27.11.2019 explicitly stated this fact. The Petitioners argue that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., filed on 15.12.2023, suffers from an inordinate delay of approximately 1,775 days (4.8 years) from the date the cause of action arose (03.02.2019) and is an attempt to cure a fatal lacuna in the complaint case after adverse judgments in connected cases (CC No. 3336/2019 and 3337/2019), where Petitioner No. 2 was acquitted on 25.07.2023. The Petitioners rely on the principles governing Section 319 Cr.P.C., as elucidated in N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas (2018) 13 SCC 663, to contend that the discretionary power to summon additional accused must be exercised cautiously, especially in cases under the N.I. Act, which are quasi-criminal and require strict adherence to statutory timelines.
Respondent's Contentions :
4. The Respondent denies the allegations of delay and mala fide intent, asserting that Petitioner No. 2 misrepresented himself as the sole proprietor, leading to the initial complaint being filed against him. The DLND10093332024 Page 4 of 6 CR No.637/24 Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs. M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
Respondent argues that the demand notice was issued to Goel Medicos through its sole proprietor, and no prejudice is caused by impleading Petitioner No. 1, as she is the actual sole proprietor. The Respondent relies on Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289, to justify the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., contending that the court has the power to summon additional persons who appear to have committed the offence during the trial.
5. Issues for Consideration :
a. Whether the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 is legally sustainable in light of the delay in filing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.? b. Whether the Respondent's knowledge of Petitioner No. 1 as the sole proprietor since 25.04.2019 or 27.11.2019 affects the validity of the impugned order?
6. Analysis :
a. Delay in Filing the Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. :
The cause of action for the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act arose on 03.02.2019, following the dishonor of the cheque and the expiry of the statutory notice period. The Respondent filed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 15.12.2023, approximately 1,775 days later. The Respondent was aware of Smt. Usha Goel as the sole proprietor of Goel Medicos since at least 25.04.2019, when it filed the recovery suit (CS No. 360/2019) naming her as such. This fact was further reinforced by the application under Section 145(2) N.I. Act filed on 27.11.2019. The Respondent has not provided any justifiable reason for the delay of over four years in seeking to implead Petitioner No. 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Harihara Krishnan v. JA Thomas (2018) 13 SCC 663 DLND10093332024 Page 5 of 6 CR No.637/24 Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs. M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
emphasized that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and must be exercised to achieve criminal justice, considering the stage of the trial and the evidence available. The inordinate delay, coupled with the Respondent's prior knowledge, suggests an attempt to rectify deficiencies in the original complaint after adverse outcomes in related cases, which is impermissible.
b. Respondent's Knowledge of the Proprietor :
The Respondent's own filings, including the recovery suit and subsequent pleadings, demonstrate that it was aware of Smt. Usha Goel's proprietorship since April 2019. The application under Section 145(2) N.I. Act filed in November 2019 further clarified this fact. The Respondent's claim that Petitioner No. 2 misrepresented himself as the sole proprietor does not hold, as the demand notice was addressed to Goel Medicos through its sole proprietor, and no evidence suggests that Petitioner No. 2 actively misled the Respondent. The failure to implead Petitioner No. 1 earlier, despite this knowledge, undermines the bonafides of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Findings :
7. The impugned order dated 03.09.2024 fails to appreciate the inordinate delay of approximately 1,775 days in filing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., despite the Respondent's knowledge of Petitioner No. 1's proprietorship since April 2019. The application appears to be an afterthought to cure deficiencies in the complaint case following the acquittal of Petitioner No. 2 in related cases (CC No. 3336/2019 and 3337/2019) on 25.07.2023. The Respondent's failure to initiate prosecution against Petitioner No. 1 within the statutory period under DLND10093332024 Page 6 of 6 CR No.637/24 Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs. M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
Section 138 N.I. Act, coupled with the lack of new evidence, renders the impugned order legally unsustainable. The principles laid down in N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas, (2018) 13 SCC 663, underscore the need for cautious exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., particularly in quasi-criminal proceedings under the N.I. Act, where strict compliance with statutory timelines is essential. Conclusion :
8. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2147/2019, is hereby set aside. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the Respondent is dismissed. The records of the complaint case shall be remitted to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the law.
9. No order as to costs.
10.The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
11.Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
12.TCR, if any, be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment.
Announced in the open Court on 08th of July 2025 (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler) ASJ-05 New Delhi Patiala House Courts Delhi/08.07.2025