$~98 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 495/2026 PANKAJ PATEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advocate. versus HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Counsel (appearance not given) CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 20.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 1984/2026 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 495/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1983/2026 3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following prayers: “a. Issue an appropriate order/direction quashing the Case bearing Ct. Cases No. 465/2017 titled ‘Havells India Ltd. v. Extreme Automation Pvt. Ltd.’ qua the Petitioner/Pankaj Patel who is arraigned as Accused No. 3 in the said Complaint filed by Havells India Ltd. under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the proceedings emanating therefrom, pending before the Court of JMFC-02, New Delhi at Patiala House Courts; and b. Issue an appropriate order/direction to quash and set aside the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Court of JMFC-02, New Delhi at Patiala House Courts insofar as it directs the Petitioner to furnish bail bonds of INR 20,000/- with one surety of like amount and any other conditions imposed therein; 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 22/01/2026 at 12:39:43 c. Issue appropriate order/direction to the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner exemplary and punitive damages for the deliberate suppression of material facts, gross abuse of the process of law, and malicious prosecution, including but not limited to: (i) compensation for the cost of traveling from Pune to New Delhi; (ii) full reimbursement of all legal fees and counsel charges incurred by the Petitioner for engaging legal services in this matter; (iii) compensation for the mental trauma, harassment, anxiety, and loss of reputation suffered by the Petitioner as a result of being wrongfully implicated in a criminal case; and (iv) such other compensation as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the respondent had filed Complaint Case No. 465/2017 before the learned JMFC-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi [hereafter ‘Trial Court’] arraying three accused persons, vide order dated 02.03.2017, summons were issued only to accused no. 1 and accused no. 2. The petitioner was never summoned and, therefore, had no knowledge of the pendency of the complaint. 5. It is submitted that subsequently, the learned Trial Court issued bailable warrants on 08.08.2023 and non-bailable warrants on 17.09.2024 against “the accused persons”, without specifying the individual accused. It is stated that despite being aware that the petitioner had never been summoned, the respondent filed a process fee for issuance of fresh non- bailable warrants, pursuant to which a police official contacted the petitioner on 24.04.2025 informing him that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against him. This was the first occasion on which the petitioner became aware of the criminal proceedings. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court and sought cancellation of the non-bailable warrants, which were stayed on 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 22/01/2026 at 12:39:43 14.05.2025 and subsequently cancelled vide order dated 17.12.2025, but subject to costs and also furnishing of bail bonds. It is argued that the petitioner was served with a copy of the complaint only on 06.01.2026 and he discovered that he had been arrayed as accused no. 3 in the complaint, however, he had never been summoned by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition, 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant accepts notice. 8. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly concedes that the petitioner was never summoned as an accused by the learned Trial Court and that the non-bailable warrants were inadvertently issued against him. 9. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent, and has perused the record. 10. In the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court could not have issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. Moreover, once it was brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court that the petitioner had never been summoned as an accused, not only the non-bailable warrants issued against him ought to have been cancelled but the Court should have also discharged the petitioner and ordered an inquiry as to how non-bailable warrants were issued, in the first place, against the person who was never summoned by the Court. 11. However, vide order dated 17.12.2025, the learned Trial Court observed as under: “ An application for cancellation of NBWs has been moved on 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 22/01/2026 at 12:39:43 behalf of the accused Pankaj Patel. Heard. Perused. The same is allowed and NBWs issued against the accused are cancelled subject to cost of Rs. 2000/-. Cost paid. Accused Pankaj Patel is admitted on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount. Bail bonds be furnished by the NDOH. Complainant is directed to supply copy of complaint to accused Pankaj during the course of the day. Issue NBWs against the accused Vinod Patel and notice to surety through SHO concerned for NDOH subject to filing of PF within 15 days. Put up for appearance of accused Vinod Patel and furnishing of bail bond by accused Pankaj Patel on 12.05.2026.” 12. Thus, the Trial Court though cancelled the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner, it also imposed costs of ₹2,000/- and further directed him to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹20,000/- with one surety of the like amount. A perusal of the said order also shows that the petitioner was treated as an accused required to furnish bail, despite the fact that he had never been summoned by the Court. 13. In the opinion of this Court, it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to have examined how non-bailable warrants came to be issued against a person who was never summoned, and to have passed appropriate consequential orders, instead of directing the petitioner to pay cost, appear on the next date and furnish bail and surety bonds. 14. In these circumstances, this Court directs that since the petitioner was never summoned by the learned Trial Court, there is no necessity for him to appear before the learned Trial Court on the next date of hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall move an appropriate application 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 22/01/2026 at 12:39:43 before the learned Trial Court, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 15. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint. In the event it is found, at any stage, that the petitioner is liable to be summoned, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to do so, strictly in accordance with law. 16. With the above directions, the present petition along with the pending application is disposed of. 17. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let comments/reply be called for from the concerned Presiding Officer who passed the order dated 17.12.2025 in this regard. The comments shall be forwarded through the concerned District and Sessions Judge and placed before this Court by the Registry within a period of two weeks from date. 18. Let this matter be listed after two weeks, upon receipt of the comments from the learned Presiding Officer concerned. 19. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J JANUARY 20, 2026/vc TD 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 22/01/2026 at 12:39:43