$~95 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010355782026 + CRL.A. 740/2026 VIVEK HARIVYASI .....Appellant Through: Appearance not given. versus M/S CYAN FINANCIAL SOULTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 05.08.2026 CRL.M.A. 23639/2026 (Condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same stands allowed. The delay of 71 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A. 23640/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.A. 740/2026 1. The instant appeal is for the following reliefs:- “i) Call for the record of the case from the Court of Ld. District Judge, Commercial Court – 03, Shahdara District, KKD, Delhi; 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 07/08/2026 at 11:29:47 ii) After perusing the record and examining the same, may graciously be pleased to set aside the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by Ld. District Judge, Commercial Court – 03, Shahdara District, KKD, South-East, Saket in CS Comm No. 267/2020 dismissing the application of the Appellant U/s 379 r/w section 215(1)(b) BNSS seeking inquiry and registration of complaint against the Respondent for having committed offences against public justice as referred in Clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 215, of BNSS, 2023; iii) Conduct a preliminary inquiry into the offences committed by the Respondent and proceed to make a complaint against the Respondent. iv) Pass any other order(s) as the Hon‟ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 3. The Court has perused the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Trial Court. The said Court vide paragraph nos. 19 to 24, has rendered the following findings:- “19. It appears to be a case of an inadvertent typographical error in description of the respondent as a director in „Statement of Truth ‟. It may be relevant to note that „M/s. Cyan Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd.‟ authorized Mr. Ashu Goenka S/o Sh. U.K. Goenka to proceed with the suit, vide Board Resolution dated 12.12.2022. The Court, vide order dated 14.12.2022, substituted Mr. Ashu Goenka as AR for the plaintiff in place of the respondent. „M/s. Cyan Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ‟ or the respondent has not taken any unfair advantage by mis-description of the respondent. In any case, the respondent was authorized to institute the suit, vide Board Resolution dated 30.03.2019. „M/s. Cyan Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ‟ or the respondent cannot take any unfair advantage over the applicant by such inadvertent error in mis- description of the respondent. 20. The explanation regarding description of the respondent as a director in „Statement of Truth‟ is plausible and find supports from Board Resolution dated 30.03.2019 and list of directors of „M/s. Cyan Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ‟ alongwith date of appointment and cessation Ex.CW2/B. 21. It is not a case of intentional or deliberate false statement. It is not a case where the respondent has / had no connection with „M/s. Cyan Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ‟ and he filed the suit to take unfair 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 07/08/2026 at 11:29:47 advantage. The respondent was a director of „M/s. Cyan Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ‟ on the date on which he was authorized to take legal actions, vide Board Resolution dated 30.03.2019. 22. Existence of power is one thing and exercise of the said power is another thing. Such a drastic power cannot be exercised on such inadvertent error in drafting of the pleadings / „Statement of Truth‟. Mere mis-description of the respondent as a director in „Statement of Truth‟ would not make him liable for prosecution for swearing false affidavit. 23. Such power cannot be exercised in a mechanical manner. It must be exercised after due deliberation. 24. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent has not committed any offence.” 4. In view of the aforesaid categorical findings, the Court finds that the typographical error has occurred, and therefore, the Trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2026 has rightly disposed of the application. Therefore, finding no justification to interfere into the said order, the instant appeal stands failed, and is hereby, dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 5, 2026 Nc 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 07/08/2026 at 11:29:47