$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010367522026 + CRL.M.C. 5834/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24340/2026, CRL.M.A. 24341/2026, CRL.M.A. 24342/2026, CRL.M.A. 24343/2026 OUTLANDER REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vinay Gaur & Ms. Vandna Kashyap, Advs. (through VC) versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP SI Ankit Chaudhary, PS Kishangarh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of Complaint Case bearing CC NI Act No. 8576/2024 titled “Hoshiyari Devi v. Outlander Realtors Private Limited & Anr.”, pending before the learned JMFC, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, along with the summoning order dated 30.10.2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Briefly stated, the respondent No.2/complainant instituted a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘NI Act’) against the petitioners, alleging that 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 12/08/2026 at 10:59:25 petitioner No.2, being in control of petitioner No.1 company, had approached her in June, 2023 for a friendly loan of Rs.24,00,000/- for the business of petitioner No.1. It was alleged that pursuant thereto, a Loan Agreement dated 30.06.2023 was executed and the said amount was advanced, comprising Rs.15,00,000/- through three cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each and Rs.9,00,000/- in cash. The complainant further alleged that petitioner No.2 issued cheque No.000005 dated 30.06.2024 for Rs.24,00,000/- towards repayment of the said loan, which was dishonoured on 25.07.2024 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. A statutory demand notice dated 17.08.2024 was thereafter issued and, upon failure of the petitioners to make payment, the aforesaid complaint came to be instituted. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 30.10.2025, after considering the application seeking condonation of delay, condoned the delay and proceeded to issue summons to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent's son, had entered into an oral Agreement to Sell with the petitioners in respect of immovable property situated near Noida/Jewar Airport and that the amount paid by him through the account of respondent No.2 constituted earnest money towards the said transaction. It is submitted that the purchaser failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period and, consequently, the earnest money stood forfeited. It is further submitted that the alleged Loan Agreement dated 30.06.2023 is fabricated and that the cheque in question has been misused. 6. Learned counsel further relies upon an FIR No.143/2026 registered at Police Station Kishan Garh at the instance of the respondent's son. It is submitted that the said FIR narrates the transaction as one concerning 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 12/08/2026 at 10:59:25 purchase of land and payments towards sale consideration and does not refer to the alleged Loan Agreement dated 30.06.2023 or any friendly loan. It is therefore contended that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is based upon a false and fabricated version of the transaction and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 7. Learned counsel has also contended that the learned Trial Court failed to conduct the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before issuing summons against the petitioners, who, according to the petitioners, reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. 8. This Court has heard the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, though wide, is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The inherent jurisdiction is not intended to enable the Court to adjudicate disputed questions of fact or to conduct a mini-trial at the stage when the complaint is yet to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence. The principles governing exercise of such jurisdiction have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 148 and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547. 10. At the stage of cognizance, the Magistrate is required to examine whether the complaint and the material placed in support thereof disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The Magistrate is not required to undertake a meticulous evaluation of the evidence or to determine 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 12/08/2026 at 10:59:25 whether the defence of the accused is ultimately correct. In M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the context of proceedings under the NI Act, recognised that the question whether the defence raised by the accused is sufficient to rebut the case of the complainant is a matter to be determined on the basis of the evidence on record. 11. In the present case, a perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant has specifically pleaded that a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- was advanced to petitioner No.1 as a friendly loan; that a Loan Agreement dated 30.06.2023 was executed; that the amount was advanced partly through three cheques aggregating to Rs.15,00,000/- and partly in cash; and that, towards repayment thereof, cheque No.000005 dated 30.06.2024 for Rs.24,00,000/- was issued, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The complaint further sets out the issuance of the statutory demand notice and the failure of the petitioners to make payment. Thus, the complaint prima facie discloses the foundational facts constituting an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 12. The petitioners, however, submit that the aforesaid case by asserting that the underlying transaction was not a loan transaction but a property transaction. According to them, the complainant’s son had entered into an oral Agreement to Sell with the petitioners in respect of immovable property situated near Noida/Jewar Airport, pursuant to which an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. It is their case that the purchaser failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period and the earnest money was consequently forfeited. The petitioners further dispute the genuineness of the Loan Agreement dated 30.06.2023 as forged and contend that the cheque in question was misused. 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 12/08/2026 at 10:59:25 13. The aforesaid defence cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings as they are all disputed questions of fact. Determination of these issues would necessarily require appreciation of evidence. The petitioners shall raise all the aforesaid defences before the learned Trial Court, where the same may be duly considered on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and in accordance with law. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to conduct the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 C.rPC, corresponding to Section 225 BNSS, before issuance of process, as petitioner No.2 is stated to be residing beyond its territorial jurisdiction. While such inquiry is mandatory where the statutory condition is attracted, the petitioners have not placed any material to establish that petitioner No.2 was residing beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court at the relevant time; rather, the memo of parties itself mentions his address at Pitampura, Delhi. His permanent address in Bihar or his subsequent presence there on account of his father's medical condition, by itself, does not establish applicability of Section 225 BNSS. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the complaint discloses a prima facie case under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act, while the grounds urged by the petitioners in support of quashing involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 16. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed, along with pending applications, if any. 17. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed 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 12/08/2026 at 10:59:25 as an expression of opinion on the merits of the complaint or the defence of the petitioners. 18. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance and information. 19. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 11, 2026/ys/sd 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 12/08/2026 at 10:59:25