$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 961/2021 and CRL.M.A. 4891/2021 MR. GAURANG NAGARSHETH & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Luthra, Mr. Tejash Yadav, Ms. Aakarshika Chawla, Mr. Dev Manan Advocates. versus M/S NLMK INDIA SERVICE CENTER PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanmitra Y. Pol and Ms. Manju K., Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 29.07.2026 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to challenge the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the MM (NI Act)/Digital Court-02 (South)/Saket, Delhi, whereby the Trial Court condoned the delay of 167 days in issuance of the statutory legal demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, taking into consideration the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, and consequently proceeded to issue summons to the petitioners. 2. In the present case the respondent and petitioner No. 3 were engaged in commercial transactions. In partial discharge of the alleged outstanding 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 01/08/2026 at 10:53:38 liability, the petitioners issued two cheques which, upon presentation, were dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient". The respondent issued the statutory demand notice after a delay of 167 days and sought condonation thereof on the ground of the COVID-19 pandemic and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned order, condoned the delay and issued summons to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has erroneously condoned the delay in issuance of the statutory notice, despite there being no provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act empowering the Court to condone such delay. It is contended that the complaint itself is barred by limitation and, therefore, the impugned order as well as the consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 4. The Learned Counsil appearing on the behalf of the respondents supports that the impugned order and submits that the delay occurred on account of extraordinary circumstances prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic and was rightly considered by the learned Trial Court while relying upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation. 5. The Court has considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The challenge in the present petition is directed against the order whereby the learned Trial Court has condoned the delay in issuance of the statutory legal notice and has proceeded to summon the petitioners. The ultimate determination of the effect of such delay and its impact on the maintainability of the complaint would necessarily depend upon the 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 01/08/2026 at 10:53:38 evidence and other attending facts and circumstances that may emerge during the course of trial. The petitioners shall have adequate opportunity to raise all permissible objections, including the issue of limitation and the legality of the condonation of delay, before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. 6. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to undertake an appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact, which are matters falling within the domain of the learned Trial Court. The Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra1, has reiterated that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and that the High Court should refrain from entering into disputed factual issues at the threshold. 7. This court have considered the issues and controversy raised by the parties which are intrinsically connected with the facts of the case and are best left to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The petitioner is, therefore, granted liberty to agitate the aspect of delay during the course of trial. 8. Accordingly with the aforesaid liberty, the petition, along with pending application, stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 29, 2026 Aks/ss 1 (2021) 19 SCC 401 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 01/08/2026 at 10:53:38