$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010147032026 + CRL.M.C. 2721/2026 and CRL.M.A. 11064-11065/2026 CHIRAG BHATIA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Jatinder Marwaha and Ms. Charu, Advocates. versus JASVINDER SINGH GULATI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rishi Manchanda and Mr. Siddharth Mullick, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:- “(a) call for the records of the complaint Case No. 1204/2017 titled as “Sh Jasvinder Singh Gulati VS. Chirag Bhatia”, pending before the Court of Ms.Surabhi Sethi, MM (NI) Act-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi; (b) partly set aside/quash the order dated order dated 10-09-2025 passed by the court of Ms. Surabhi Sethi, MM (NI) Act-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in complaint I.E. CC No. 1204/2017 titled as “Sh Jasvinder Singh Gulati VS. Chirag Bhatia”, whereby the Ld. MM dismissed the application for waiver of Cost; (c) grant costs of the present petition in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondent; and (d) pass any other further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 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 13/08/2026 at 11:08:22 3. The genesis of the controversy lies in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, being CC No. 1204/2017, filed by the respondent against the petitioner, arising out of a friendly loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- alleged to have been advanced by the respondent to the petitioner. During the pendency of the said complaint, the parties arrived at a settlement before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, which came to be recorded vide Mediation Order dated 27.04.2022. Under the terms of the said settlement, the petitioner undertook to pay a total sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- in five instalments spread between 15.05.2022 and 15.05.2023, with a stipulation that any default or delay in payment of an instalment would attract interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the defaulted amount, until actual payment. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner defaulted in adhering to the instalment schedule agreed upon between the parties. The record of the Trial Court further indicates that the petitioner was granted several opportunities to clear his dues towards the respondent, and it was only on account of repeated defaults that a cost of Rs. 40,000/- came to be imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 22.11.2023. The petitioner’s explanation before the Trial Court, that a demand draft towards the settlement amount had in fact been arranged but could not be honoured on account of a discrepancy in the name of the payee, was duly considered and did not find favour with the Metropolitan Magistrate. 5. The petitioner thereafter moved an application dated 11.12.2023 seeking waiver of the said cost, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.09.2025. It may be noted that, in the course of proceedings culminating in the impugned order, learned counsel appearing 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 13/08/2026 at 11:08:22 for the petitioner before the Trial Court had also placed on record that a further sum of Rs. 14,850/- was due and payable towards interest for the delayed payment, and had undertaken to clear the said amount. The Trial Court, taking into account the considerable delay occasioned by the conduct of the petitioner in honouring the settlement, declined to waive the cost already imposed, while granting the petitioner further time to deposit the same, with a rider that a failure to pay by the next date would attract an additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- for prolonging the trial. 6. It appears that against the order dated 10.09.2025, the petitioner had earlier filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate petition before this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a revision before this Court i.e. CRL.REV.P.(NI) 34/2026, which was withdrawn on 09.02.2026. 7. When learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the issue of maintainability of the instant petition, a perusal of the order dated 09.02.2026 passed in CRL.REV.P.(NI) 34/2026 would not indicate that any liberty was granted to the petitioner to institute a fresh petition thereafter. The withdrawal of the said revision petition was, therefore, unqualified, and the instant petition, filed without the benefit of any such liberty, is on a weak footing insofar as its very maintainability is concerned. 8. Even otherwise, on merits, the facts and circumstances of the present case do not warrant any interference with the impugned order. The imposition of cost was occasioned by the petitioner’s own conduct in repeatedly defaulting on the instalments agreed upon under the mediated settlement, notwithstanding the opportunities extended to him by the trial court. It is well settled that a settlement arrived at between the parties to a 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 13/08/2026 at 11:08:22 complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not divest the Trial Court of its independent power and discretion to impose costs where the conduct of a party has occasioned delay and consumed the time of the Court. 9. The subsequent clearance of the outstanding amount and interest by the petitioner, howsoever belated, does not, by itself, efface the delay already occasioned, nor does it render the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion in imposing a cost of Rs. 40,000/- either arbitrary or perverse so as to call for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. 10. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 10.09.2025. Accordingly, the instant petition, along with the pending applications, stands dismissed. 11. It is, however, clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying complaint being CC No. 1204/2017, and the trial court shall proceed further in accordance with law. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 6, 2026 Nc/nk 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 13/08/2026 at 11:08:22