$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4675/2026 SHAHID KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Arun Kumar Bharti, Mr. Tushar Kumar and Mr. Tanay Jareda, Advs. versus M/S GOLDEN KATHA INDUSTRIES .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 12493/2018 titled “M/S Golden Katha Industries vs. Shahid Khan”, instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) by the respondent, which is presently pending trial before the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the cheques in question were initially dishonoured on 09.05.2018. Thereafter, the same were re- presented and were again dishonoured vide return memo dated 31.07.2018. He further submits that the statutory legal notice was dispatched only on 01.09.2018, i.e., after 32 days from the date of dishonour, which is beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 138(b) of the NI Act. 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 13/07/2026 at 16:11:07 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no proof of service of the legal notice upon the petitioner inasmuch as no delivery tracking report or any other proof of service has been placed on record by the respondent. He also submits that the complaint has been instituted through a Special Power of Attorney, which is undated, unstamped and unnotarized, and, therefore, the very institution of the complaint is vitiated. 5. On a query put by this Court as to whether the petitioner has challenged the summoning order by filing a revision before the learned Sessions Court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that no such revision has been preferred. 6. There is no bar to re-presenting the cheque and thereafter issuing a statutory legal notice. As regards the legal notice, the petitioner does not dispute its issuance. The only contention raised is that the same was dispatched beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 7. It may be mentioned that all the aforesaid pleas are available to the petitioner to be urged before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Further, an equally efficacious statutory remedy was available to the petitioner to assail the summoning order by way of a revision before the learned Sessions Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has not availed of the said remedy. 8. This Court is also of the view that the plea regarding limitation, as well as the other objections raised by the petitioner, involve mixed questions of fact and law, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS without the parties leading appropriate evidence before the learned Trial Court. At this stage, no ground is made out for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the complaint 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 13/07/2026 at 16:11:07 proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J. JULY 8, 2026/ys/m 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 13/07/2026 at 16:11:07