CRL.M.C. 7012/2026 & connected matters $~97 to 100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21st September, 2026 97. # CNR No. DLHC010448532026 + CRL.M.C. 7012/2026 with CRL.M.A. 29300/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29301/2026 MR. VIJAY KUMAR GHAI AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mr. Rajat Asija, Advocates. versus M/S FASHION DEZIRE AND ANR ......Respondents Through: 98. # CNR No. DLHC010448542026 + CRL.M.C. 7013/2026 with CRL.M.A. 29302/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29303/2026 MR. VIJAY KUMAR GHAI AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mr. Rajat Asija, Advocates. versus M/S FASHION DEZIRE .....Respondent Through: 99. # CNR No. DLHC010448552026 + CRL.M.C. 7014/2026 with CRL.M.A. 29304/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29305/2026 Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Date:28.09.2026 19:49:50 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7012/2026 & connected matters MR. VIJAY KUMAR GHAI AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mr Rajat Asija, Advocates. versus M/S FASHION DEZIRE AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: 100. # CNR No. DLHC010448562026 + CRL.M.C. 7015/2026 with CRL.M.A. 29306/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29307/2026 MR. VIJAY KUMAR GHAI AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mr Rajat Asija, Advocates. versus M/S FASHION DEZIRE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) CRL.M.C. 7012/2026; CRL.M.C. 7013/2026; CRL.M.C. 7014/2026 and CRL.M.C. 7015/2026 1. The present petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking setting aside of the orders dated 28th August, 2024 passed by the JMFC, (NI Act) - 02, Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Ct. Case No. 519350/2016, Ct. Case No. 514744/2016, Ct. Case No. 514741/2016 and Ct. Case No. 516789/2016. 2. The petitioners also seek quashing of judgments dated 17th November, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Delhi in Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Date:28.09.2026 19:49:50 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7012/2026 & connected matters Criminal Revision No.52/2025, No.55/2025, No.54/2025, No.56/2025 affirming the orders passed by JMFC. 3. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present petitions are as follows: 3.1. The respondent instituted four (4) complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’) against M/s Priknit Retails Ltd. and its directors, including the present petitioners, alleging dishonour of cheques issued towards discharge of liability. 3.2. On 3rd April, 2024, the petitioners filed a list of witnesses before the Trial Court seeking issuance of summons for defence evidence. Accordingly, summons were issued to the defence witnesses for 28th August, 2024. 3.3. The Trial Court, vide orders dated 28th August, 2024, dropped the bank official of the accused from the list of defence witnesses, observing that no ground had been made out for calling the bank official as a defence witness. 3.4. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners preferred revision petitions. 3.5. The Sessions Court, vide judgments dated 17th November, 2025, dismissed the revision petitions. 4. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioners have filed the present petitions. 5. The Trial Court has dropped the bank official from the list of defence witnesses as no ground has been made out to call the bank official as defence witness. 6. The Sessions Court, vide impugned orders, has dismissed the revision Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Date:28.09.2026 19:49:50 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7012/2026 & connected matters petitions on ground of maintainability and in view of the bar contained in Section 397(2) CrPC/Section 438(2) BNSS. It was held that the said order does not terminate the proceedings and is, therefore, procedural in nature. Hence, the order dropping the said witness is an interlocutory order. 7. Even on merits, the Sessions Court has recorded that the cheques in question as well as the return memos were already on record. The Sessions Court has also taken note of the statutory presumption applicable to the bank documents under the provisions of the NI Act. 8. The Sessions Court has duly also noted that the complaints have been pending for approximately eight years and are presently at the stage of defence evidence. 9. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners. 10. It is the petitioners’ case that the drawer company, M/s Priknit Retails Ltd., has since gone into liquidation and that the petitioners have consequently lost access to its records, leaving the bank as the only source of the relevant documents. 11. The cheques and return memos are already on record, and it shall be open for the petitioners to lead such evidence, including as to the chronology of the cheque series, as may be permissible in law, before the Trial Court. 12. In my considered view, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below. Both the Courts have rightly declined the request for summoning the bank official. 13. Even though the impugned orders were passed on 17th November, 2025, the petitioners have approached this Court after a period of almost 10 months. Clearly, the attempt is to delay the proceedings in the complaints Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Date:28.09.2026 19:49:50 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 7012/2026 & connected matters and the adjudication of the trial. 14. A second revision cannot be filed before the High Court in terms of Section 397(2) CrPC/Section 438(2) BNSS. The statutory bar of Section 438(2) BNSS cannot be overcome by invoking jurisdiction of this Court for exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka1. 15. In any event, when two competent courts below have given concurrent findings after application of judicial mind, the scope of interference by this Court to exercise inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS is limited. The petitioner has the burden to prove that the findings of the two competent courts below are contrary to law and suffers with infirmity. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to make out any grounds for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 16. No ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 17. Pending applications stand disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J. SEPTEMBER 21, 2026 Vivek/- CORRECTED AND UPLOADED ON 28.09.2026 1 1990 SCC (Cri) 537 Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Date:28.09.2026 19:49:50