$~121 & 122 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010367442026 + CRL.M.C. 5832/2026 AL NAFEES FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ARHAM QURESHI & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunder Khatri, Mr. Naman Khatri, Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav, Mr. Sohel Rishabh, Advocates. versus YUNUS QURESHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurabh Soni, Ms. Asim Naeem, Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Thakur, Ms Mannat Singh, Advocates. 122 # CNR No. DLHC010367482026 + CRL.M.C. 5833/2026 AL NAFEES FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ARHAM QURESHI & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunder Khatri, Mr. Naman Khatri, Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav, Mr. Sohel Rishabh, Advocates. versus YUNUS QURESHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurabh Soni, Ms. Asim Naeem, 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 14/08/2026 at 11:44:10 Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Thakur, Ms Mannat Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 11.08.2026 CRL.M.A. 24335/2026 (EXEMPTION) and CRL.M.A. 24336/2026 (EXEMPTION) in CRL.M.C. 5832/2026 CRL.M.A. 24338/2026 (EXEMPTION) and CRL.M.A. 24339/2026 (EXEMPTION) in CRL.M.C. 5833/2026 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Applications stand disposed of. CRL.M.C. 5832/2026 and CRL.M.A. 24334/2026 CRL.M.C. 5833/2026 and CRL.M.A. 24337/2026 3. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised various objections including to assert that in the complaints, there are no averments made by the complainant as to the manner in which the petitioners are responsible for the day to day affairs of the said petitioner no. 1-Al Nafees Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. (“Company”). 4. As per Mr. Hariharan, there were some transaction between the complainant and the father of the petitioner no.1. The father had expired and the Company earlier went into liquidation and even in evidence of the complainant, he has categorically admitted that there was no loan extended by the complainant. 5. Mr. Hariharan has taken the Court to the evidence of the complainant and has read the following paragraph: “I have studied upto 8th class. I might have signed the evidence affidavit at the 0 office of my counsel. I was having multiple business like plastic and 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 14/08/2026 at 11:44:10 woollen factory etc in 2018. Therc was no business dealing with the accused no. 1 company. (Vol. I had purchased a plot from it.). I knew late accused no. 3 Mastkeen qureshi @ Ballu for the last 20-30 years. I have not advanced any loan to any of the accused persons or to the accused No. I company. In my knowledge, I did not take any loan from any of the accused persons or from the accused No. I company.” 6. The submissions are strongly opposed by learned counsel who appears for the respondent/complainant, who appears on advance instructions, and he submits that the trial is at advance stage and at the time of dishonour of the cheques, the present applicant was one of the Directors of the Company and, even otherwise, all aspects concerning liability and defence can be looked into by the concerned Trial Court. 7. The Court has considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record. 8. The crux of the complaint appears to be that the Company in order to settle its obligation, under an earlier oral agreement to sell, agreed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3 Crores and in furtherance of it, cheques were issued by the company, which upon being dishonoured, led to the present proceedings being initiated. It remains undisputed that the complaint was filed on 08.03.2019 and cognizance upon the complaint was taken on 18.03.2019. Thereafter, evidence commenced on 02.06.2026, and as on date, the complainant is under cross-examination. 9. A perusal of the complaint, specifically, paragraph nos. 7 and 8, would reveal that sufficient imputations have been made against the petitioners herein to maintain a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”). The said paragraphs read as under: “7. Accused No,2 and 3 were delaying the possession of the property and execution of the Registry by one pretext or other. Being the accused No.2 and 3 having good relationship in earlier also, complainant in good faith 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 14/08/2026 at 11:44:10 accepted their reasons for the delay of execution of Registry and never doubt about their malafide intentions to usurp his money. 8. That once the accused got default by doing Registry in favour of the complainant and meantime the complainant came to know that the said property is already mortgaged with the Bank. Then the complainant has called the close friends and 3. Complainant also apprised that he will make a complaint in the Police to lodge an FIR against the accused No.2 and 3. With the indulgence of common friends, it was agreed that the accused shall refund the money and also pay Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One crore and fifty lac only) as a damages so a settlement took for a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crore only) It is further agreed between the accused and the complainant that this total amount will be cleared in installments within a year.” 10. In the cross examination of the complainant he has stated that the cheques in question were sent to him by accused no. 3. He has also maintained the stance of there being a settlement between the parties, under which as the complaint narrates, the petitioners undertook a liability to make payments to the petitioners. Further, a reference may be made to Section 139 of the NI Act which reads as under: “139. Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.” 11. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Rangachari v. BSNL,1 para. 27 and 28 of which reads as under: “27. We think that, in the circumstances, the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint. In fact, an advertence to Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shows that on the other elements of an offence under Section 138 being satisfied, the burden is on the Board of Directors or the officers in charge of the affairs of the company to show that they are not liable to be convicted. Any restriction on their power or existence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial 1 (2007) 5 SCC 108 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 14/08/2026 at 11:44:10 such a restriction or to show that at the relevant time they were not in charge of the affairs of the Company. Reading the complaint as a whole, we are satisfied that it is a case where the contentions sought to be raised by the appellant can only be dealt with after the conclusion (sic commencement) of the trial. 28. We therefore affirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss this appeal. We make it clear that the case will have to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced.” 12. Assuming that Mr. Hariharan’s argument of the cross examination of the complainant rebuts the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, is correct; the same requires a factual determination, which is to be made by the Trial Court, and not by this Court, at this stage, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). 13. Accordingly, giving sufficient weight to the fact that the complaints are of the year 2019 and the cognizance was taken immediately, this Court does not deem it appropriate to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) after a delay of 6 long years. 14. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petitions are dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 11, 2026 Aks/ Rao 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 14/08/2026 at 11:44:10