$~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010426852026 + CRL.M.C. 6693/2026, CRL.M.A. 27960/2026-Stay CRL.M.A. 27961/2026-Exp. NANDANI SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Mr. Abhinav Akash and Mr. Avinash Mishra, Advs. versus MS. SNEHA BHANDARI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 10.09.2026 1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “(a) Quash and set aside Complaint Case bearing CT CASES/42309/2024 titled "Sneha Bhandari Vs. Nandini Singh" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the Court of Ms. Seema Meena, Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-04, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, together with the summoning/cognizance order dated 07.11.2025 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the Petitioner; (b) Quash and set aside the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the Ld. Trial Court whereby a Non-Bailable Warrant came to be issued against the Petitioner; (c) Quash and set aside the order dated 02.09.2026 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, insofar as it puts the Petitioner on terms to "comply with terms of settlement" and imposes costs of Rs. 2,000/- payable to-the complainant as a 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 16/09/2026 at 11:46:01 condition of the stay of the Non-Bailable Warrant;” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner seeks to agitate that the complaint per se was not maintainable on two legal grounds. 3. Firstly, the learned counsel submits that as Legal Notice dated 12.09.2024 (Legal Notice) calls upon the petitioner and her husband to cumulatively, and not independently, make payment of Rs.13,00,000/- by virtue of two Cheques bearing no(s). “000550” and “259677” both dated 01.07.2024 for Rs.6,50,000/- each, the complaint itself, filed pursuant thereto, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court entitled Kaveri Plastics vs. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2019] is per se not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel secondly submits that since the said Legal Notice was sent at wrong address (due to an incorrect pin code), the service thereof is contrary to the mandate of Section 138b(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), the complaint was not maintainable on that count also. 5. Since the Legal Notice is forming the germane of the dispute herein, the relevant extract therefrom is reproduced herein as under:- “4. That upon presentation of the cheques issued by you and your husband, both the cheques got dishonored and our client was informed of the same by the bank through the cheque return memo dated 16.08.2024 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. My client perturbed by this development, promptly informed you about dishonor of the cheque’s bearing numbers “259677” and “000550”. In reply to the same you have been continuously seeking time with no appropriate reason. That issuance of the aforesaid cheques by you is the conclusive proof of your legal debt 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 16/09/2026 at 11:46:01 and liability and obligation to our client. You have failed to repay the outstanding settled amount. 5. That in case you, the abovementioned addressee/noticee, fail to pay the said amount of the dishonoured cheque along with interest @ 18% pa from date of the cheque till payment date, within fifteen (15) Days of the receipt of this notice, to our clients directly. We have instructions to initiate appropriate legal action against you, the abovementioned addressee/noticee, entirely at your risk, as to costs and peril , without any further reference to you. 6. … …It is therefore, requested in your interest that under these circumstances, I through this legal notice on behalf of my aforesaid client, call upon you and your husband to make the payment of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh only) along with interest payable at 18% per annum within the stipulated period of 15 days from the receipt this legal/demand notice… …”. [Emphasis Supplied] 6. As apparent therefrom, the Legal Notice categorically mentions that the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was qua two separate Cheques bearing no(s). “000550” and “259677” both dated 01.07.2024 for Rs.6,50,000/- each. In fact, the Legal Notice was sent/ addressed only to the petitioner alongwith copy of particular cheque bearing no.“259677” for Rs.6,50,000/- adduced therewith. 7. Therefore, at this stage, particularly whence the petitioner has himself appeared/ being represented before the learned Trial Court on more than 10 occasions after being duly served with the Legal Notice way back on 17.09.2024, i.e. almost more than two years at the very same address, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend anything qua 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 16/09/2026 at 11:46:01 the Legal Notice, be it about the amount(s) mentioned therein or qua the (wrong) mentioning of the pin code therein. Even otherwise, the said Legal Notice is to be read as a whole conjointly, and not disjointly which the petitioner seeks to do at this belated stage and that too whence much water has already flown. All these, anyways, are matters of trial. Further, that the petitioner never responded to the Legal Notice is of utmost significance. 8. With respect to the dicta of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaveri Plastics (supra), the same is not applicable as it pertains to a typographical error qua the ‘cheque amount’, which is not the case herein. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner cannot seek recourse to the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, at this stage. 10. Furthermore, the very same petitioner has already moved an application seeking cancellation of his Non-Bailable Warrants separately, and which is already pending before the learned Trial Court, is another ground for the present petition being not maintainable in the eyes of law. 11. Considering the aforesaid, since no ground is made out for issuance of notice in the present petition, the present petition alongwith the pending applications is dismissed in limine with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to be paid by the petitioner in favour of Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund [A/C 155530100009730; IFSC UCBA0001553] within a period of two weeks. SAURABH BANERJEE, J. SEPTEMBER 10, 2026/Ab 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 16/09/2026 at 11:46:01