Vijay Verma vs M/S Aggarwal Traders Doors Ltd & Anr.

$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 20 April, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 6717/2023 & CRL.M.A. 25172/2023

VIJAY VERMA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. O.P. Faizi,
Mr. Anand Aggarwal, Mr. Chakit
Singhal, Ms. Nishtha Verma, Ms.
Lisha Arora, Mr. Himanshu Singh,
Ms. Anjali Kashyap and Ms. Ishita,
Advocates.
versus

M/S AGGARWAL TRADERS DOORS LTD & ANR.
.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Mukul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for both the respondents.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner herein had filed Complaint Case No.1639/2016 under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 .
2. Such complaint, initially, filed before the Court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Budh Nagar, Delhi, was directed against
three accused i.e. M/s. Aggarwal Traders Doors Ltd., Mr. Shiv Narayan
Agrawal and Ms. Poonam Agrawal.
3. The accused No.2 and 3 were shown as Directors of accused No.1
Company. However, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 21.10.2014,
summoned accused No.2 i.e. Mr. Shiv Narayan Agrawal, Director of M/s.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6717/2023 1

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:22.04.2026
17:41:41

Aggarwal Traders Doors Ltd. only. Later on, the case was transferred to Delhi
on 04.11.2015 and is presently pending before North West District, Rohini
Courts, Delhi.
4. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been served and the case is at the
stage of cross-examination of complainant.
5. It was at said stage of the case that the complainant filed an application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon accused-company against
whom, unfortunately, there was no order. It was contended therein that the
cheque had been issued by the Director on behalf of accused-company only
and, therefore, his summoning was indispensable in nature.
6. Learned Trial Court, however, dismissed the abovesaid application on
24.09.2022, observing that no new evidence had come to the light,
necessitating summoning of the accused-company under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
It also observed that any indulgence would rather amount to review of the
order which does not have legal sanctity as the Criminal Court has no power
to review its own order.
7. The petitioner-complainant has challenged not only the summoning
order dated 21.10.2014 but also order dated 24.09.2022.
8. Learned counsel for respondent has joined the proceedings through
video-conferencing and submits that as per the averments made in the
complaint, accused-Mr. Shiv Narayan Agrawal was, allegedly, carrying
business under name and style of other firm i.e. M/s. Aggarwal Traders and
asked the complainant to raise invoices in the name of all accused-company.
9. Fact, however, remains that the cheque in question has been signed by
Mr. Shiv Narayan Agrawal as Authorized Signatory for M/s. Aggarwal
Traders Doors Ltd . There are, in all, three cheques and all such cheques
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6717/2023 2

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:22.04.2026
17:41:41

have been signed by him for and on behalf of M/s. Aggarwal Traders Doors
Ltd. The complaint is specifically directed against M/s. Aggarwal Traders
Doors Ltd. and legal notice was also issued against the abovesaid company.
10. Apparently, there was no reason to have not summoned the
accused-company. Yes, a Criminal Court does not enjoy power to review its
own order but if the accused-company is not permitted to be summoned and it
does not participate in the trial, it would have adverse impact over the entire
case as Director cannot be prosecuted, without the company as such.
Reference in this context be made to Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy & Anr.
(2019) 3 SCC 797.
11. Evidently, the summoning order is bereft of any reason and in view of
facts placed on record, the accused-company should have been summoned.
To that extent, the grievance is well-founded.
12. Learned counsel for respondent, after hearing arguments for some
time, submits that he would have no objection if the accused-company is also
directed to be summoned. He, however, submits that such concession is,
without prejudice to his rights and contentions, and he may be granted liberty
to raise all his pleas before the learned Trial Court at appropriate stage and he
may also be permitted to cross-examine the complainant on behalf of the
accused-company.
13. In view of the above, the present complaint is disposed of with the
direction that M/s. Aggarwal Traders Doors Ltd. stands summoned as
accused in the aforesaid case. The Authorized Representative of the accused
company shall appear before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed i.e.
29.04.2026 and the learned Trial Court shall take up the matter after taking his
such appearance on record and would proceed further with the matter in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6717/2023 3

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:22.04.2026
17:41:41

accordance with law.
14. The present petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.




(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
APRIL 20, 2026/ss/sa
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6717/2023 4

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:22.04.2026
17:41:41