CRL.M.C. 5867/2026 1 $~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12th August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010369812026 + CRL.M.C. 5867/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24494/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24495/2026 NAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate. versus M/S VARDHMAN NETWORK SOLUTION PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is facing prosecution in a complaint case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 2. The case is already at the stage of final arguments. 3. The petitioner prays for one last opportunity to lead his evidence in defence and challenges order dated 31.01.2026 as well as a subsequent order dated 25.04.2026 whereby his prayer to lead DE has been declined. 4. Complaint in question was filed in the year 2015 and the cheque amount is stated to be of Rs.95,30,000/-. 5. When the application filed by the accused was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 31.01.2026, the following observations were made by the learned Trial Court:- “Matter is at the stage of DE. Ld. counsel for accused has orally requested for exemption from physical appearance of accused in court today on the ground of ill health. Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:14.08.2026 10:46:15 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5867/2026 2 Heard. Perusal of the record reveals that accused has been granted several opportunities to lead DE as reflected by order sheet dated 22.09.2018, 20.11.2021, 23.03.2022, 31.05.2022, 16.04.2024, 19.09.2024, 17.09.2025 and 20.12.2025. further cost has been imposed upon the accused, however the cost has remained unpaid. Moreover, no medical documents have been placed on record for absence of accused on the present date. It is evident that accused is deliberately avoiding the process of the court. In light of the conduct of the accused, right of the accused to lead DE, stands closed. Put up for final arguments on 28.02.2026.” 6. Thereafter also, applicant moved another application which was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court, while observing that it was already a ten-year old matter. 7. It looks little surprising and baffling as to why the matter was kept for defence evidence for around seven years. Ideally speaking, learned Trial Court should have closed the opportunity in the beginning itself, instead of giving him indulgence, time and again, for around seven years. 8. Be that as it may, there does not seem to be any reason, much less a compelling one, to interfere with the matter and to grant any indulgence to the petitioner, who despite specific repeated opportunities did not avail the same, for the reasons best known to him. 9. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. 10. A copy of this order be also sent to learned Trial Court for information. 11. Pending applications also stand disposed of. (MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2026/st/sk Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:14.08.2026 10:46:15