Ch Lekh Raj Educational And Charitable Trust & Ors. vs S A Infotech Private Limited
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~76 to 80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 30 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010523452026
+ CRL.M.C. 8142/2026, CRL.M.A. 34152/2026, CRL.M.A. 34153/2026
& CRL.M.A. 34154/2026
CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST &
ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
S A INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through:
77
# CNR No. DLHC010523462026
+ CRL.M.C. 8143/2026, CRL.M.A. 34155/2026, CRL.M.A. 34156/2026
& CRL.M.A. 34157/2026
CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST &
ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
S.A. INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through:
78
# CNR No. DLHC010523472026
+ CRL.M.C. 8144/2026, CRL.M.A. 34158/2026, CRL.M.A. 34159/2026
& CRL.M.A. 34160/2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
09:06:31
Page 1 of 6
CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST &
ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
S.A. INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through:
79
# CNR No. DLHC010523492026
+ CRL.M.C. 8145/2026, CRL.M.A. 34161/2026, CRL.M.A. 34162/2026
& CRL.M.A. 34163/2026
CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST &
ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
S.A. INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through:
80
# CNR No. DLHC010523502026
+ CRL.M.C. 8146/2026, CRL.M.A. 34164/2026, CRL.M.A. 34165/2026
& CRL.M.A. 34166/2026
CH LEKH RAJ EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST &
ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
S A INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through:
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
09:06:31
Page 2 of 6
For Petitioner: Ms. Anjaneya Mishra and Mr. Nidish Gupta,
Advs.
For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kr. Gupta, Mr. Anuj Kumar, Mr. Sachin
and Ms. Pooja, Advs. with AR of respondent in
person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)/Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking quashing of the order dated
th
24 October, 2026, passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (NI Act) –
06, South East, Saket, Delhi.
2. By way of the impugned order, the application of the petitioners herein,
under Section 311 of the CrPC/Section 348 of the BNSS, for summoning the
bank officials of the State Bank of India, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana Branch
(“Bank”) as witnesses, was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the
present case, the respondent has instituted complaints under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), on the basis of the cheques
in question being dishonoured with the remarks ‘Account Closed’.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had not intentionally
got the said account closed, but it was closed by the Bank in view of the
instructions and circulars of the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”).
5. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had sought
limited reopening of the defence evidence and summoning of the concerned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
09:06:31
Page 3 of 6
bank officials for proving the circumstances and reasons for closure of the
bank account.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the fact that
whether the closure of the bank account was voluntary or pursuant to the
directions of a competent authority, can only be ascertained through the
examination of the concerned bank officials, and the relevant bank records.
Therefore, denial of such opportunity would seriously prejudice the
petitioners in establishing their defence before the Trial Court.
th
7. He submits that the letter dated 08 September, 2021, in this regard,
was traced only recently, upon which the application was filed before the Trial
Court, seeking permission to produce and prove the said document through
competent bank officials and original bank records.
th
8. However, vide impugned order dated 24 October, 2026, the Trial
Court has dismissed the said application, on account of which the present
petition has been filed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment in the case of Adinarayana Versus P.N. Sridhar Bhattar,
MANU/KA/2871/2013 , and the judgment in the case of Nagaraja Upadhya
Versus M. Sanjeevan, 2007 SCC OnLine KAR 214, both passed by the High
Court of Karnataka, in support of his submissions.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
vehemently opposed the present petitions.
11. He submits that the petitioners had issued a total of 30 (thirty) cheques
to the respondent, which were dishonoured, leading to filing of 29 (twenty-
nine) complaints.
12. He further submits that the petitioners owe a sum of approximately Rs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
09:06:31
Page 4 of 6
2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lacs only) to the respondent.
13. I have heard learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the
record before this Court.
14. At the outset, it is to be noted that the application for reopening of
defence evidence was filed by the petitioners herein, only at the stage of
judgment before the Trial Court. Furthermore, the Trial Court has
categorically recorded that there was balance of only a sum of Rs. 8383/-
(Rupees Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty-Three only) in the bank
account of the petitioners herein, at the time of its closure which was grossly
insufficient to honour the cheque in question.
15. Accordingly, it is clear that even if the account was closed on the
instructions of the bank, the petitioners did not have sufficient amounts in
their account.
16. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are clearly
distinguishable, as there is no finding contained therein qua the amount lying
in the account being grossly insufficient and inadequate to honour the cheques
in question. Thus, in these circumstances, since the account had not been
closed at the instance of the accused therein, benefit was granted to the
accused therein and they were not held guilty of the offence under Section
138 of the NI Act.
17. However, in the present case, even if it were to be taken that the
accounts were not closed by the petitioners, but under the instructions of the
RBI, no benefit would accrue in favour of the petitioners.
18. As noted hereinabove, the balance in the accounts of the petitioners was
grossly inadequate in comparison to the amounts for which the cheques had
been issued.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
09:06:31
Page 5 of 6
19. No infirmity is found in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
20. The present petitions are accordingly dismissed.
21. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 30, 2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:03.11.2026
09:06:31
Page 6 of 6