$~76 to 80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010470582026 + CRL.M.C. 7336/2026 DEEPAK KUMAR .....Petitioner versus NEELAM DUGGAL .....Respondent With CRL.M.C. 7337/2026, CRL.M.C. 7338/2026, CRL.M.C. 7339/2026, CRL.M.C. 7340/2026 For Petitioner: Mr. Ali Human and Mohd. Furkan, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Dalal, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Ms. Dipti Singh Arya, Mr. Shresth Kaushik, Mr. Shakhyam Agrwal and Ms. Kavita, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. The present petitions are directed against identical orders dated 28th July, 2026, passed by the learned ASJ-04, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CR No. 133/2026, CR No. 136/2026, CR No. 134/2026, CR No. 137/2026 and CR No. 135/2026, whereby the challenge raised by the Petitioner to the identical orders dated 29th January, 2026, passed by the learned JMFC (NI Act)-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in CC NI ACT/1308/2022, CC NI ACT/1307/2022, CC NI ACT/1309/2022, CC NI ACT/1310/2022 and CC NI ACT/1311/2022, respectively, all titled 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 01/10/2026 at 11:19:20 Neelam Duggal v. Deepak Kumar, was dismissed. 2. The underlying orders dated 29th January, 2026, which were impugned in revision before the Sessions Court, closed the right of the Petitioner to file an application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811. Consequently, upon closure of the said right, the matters proceeded to the stage of complainant’s evidence and statement of the accused. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Petitioner approached the Sessions Court by way of revision petitions. The Sessions Court, however, dismissed the revision petitions on the ground of maintainability, holding that the orders dated 29th January, 2026, being interlocutory orders, were not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. 4. During the course of submissions, counsel for the Respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the conduct of the Petitioner. He has pointed out that the Petitioner has repeatedly and unnecessarily delayed the proceedings. He submits that, in fact, till date, the Petitioner has not even furnished the surety bonds before the Trial Court and, moreover, on several dates, has sought adjournments on one ground or the other. He submits that, in such circumstances, the matter has now proceeded to the stage of complainant’s evidence, which has been recorded and the witness stands discharged. It is further pointed out that non-bailable warrants were also directed to be issued against the Petitioner and that the matter is now listed for 14th October, 2026, for recording of the statement of the accused. 5. That said, in order to expedite the hearing, both counsel are agreeable to have the matters disposed of upon imposition of costs, with strict 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 01/10/2026 at 11:19:20 timelines for conclusion of the trial. 6. Accordingly, a composite cost of INR 50,000/- is directed to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent in respect of the aforesaid cases on or before the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. Subject to payment of the aforesaid cost, the order dated 29th January, 2026, passed by The Trial Court, is set aside to the limited extent of closure of the Petitioner’s right to file an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act. The Petitioner shall accordingly be at liberty to file the said application, with an advance copy thereof being supplied to counsel for the Respondent, which shall be heard and decided on the date fixed. The cost imposed shall be independent of any cost imposed by the Trial Court, if any. In case the aforesaid cost is not paid, the liberty granted to the Petitioner to file the aforesaid application shall stand withdrawn. 7. In the event the application is allowed, counsel for the Petitioner shall conclude the cross-examination of the complainant’s witness on a single day and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. Further, this direction shall not dilute any direction issued by the Trial Court regarding issuance of non- bailable warrants against the Petitioner, and the Petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law before the Trial Court. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the present petitions stand disposed of. 9. It is clarified that, in case the aforesaid timelines are not adhered to, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 1 “NI Act” 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 01/10/2026 at 11:19:20 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 as 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 01/10/2026 at 11:19:20