$~123 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010367812026 + CRL.M.C. 5839/2026 and CRL.M.A. 24358/2026, CRL.M.A. 24359/2026, CRL.M.A. 24360/2026, CRL.M.A. 24361/2026 ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Grover and Mr. Parth Mudgal, Advocates versus RAJENDER GUPTA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 11.08.2026 CRL.M.A. 24358/2026 EXEM.- CERT. COPIES 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A. 24361/2026 (DELAY OF 132 DAYS IN RE FILING OF PETITION) 3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 132 days in filing the petition stands condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 5839/2026 and CRL.M.A. 24359/2026 5. The petition is for the following reliefs: 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 11:09:39 “A. To quash the complaint case proceedings filed against thePetitioner before the “Ld. Court of JMFC-03, (NI-Act),Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi”, in the mattertitled as “Rajender Gupta Versus Gadieala Load Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.” bearing case no. “Ct. Cases/ 4130/2019”and proceedings emanating there under;” 6. This Court in the case of X vs. State of NCT & Anr.1 has held that the order of a Magistrate issuing process or summoning an accused, does not fall within the bar of Section 397(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Such an order is intermediate or quasi-final in nature, and therefore amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court or the High Court. The paragraph 23 of the said decision is extracted as under: “23. Thus, it can be concluded that an order of Magistrate issuing process or summoning an accused under Sections 200 to 204 Cr. P. C. does not fall within the bar of Section 397(2) Cr. P. C. Such an order is intermediate or quasi-final in nature, and therefore, amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Court or the High Court.” 7. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the petitioner has a remedy to approach the Revisional Court against the impugned order. Accordingly, let the petitioner to avail the said remedy if he so desires. 8. There is no reason to entertain the instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and, accordingly, leaving all rights and contentions of the parties open, the petition, along with pending application, stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 11, 2026 aks 1 2025:DHC:9142 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 11:09:39