Delhi High Court – Orders
Satish Kumar Pawa vs Mr. Ravinder Kumar Baid on 18 February, 2026
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1366/2026
SATISH KUMAR PAWA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Anjaneya Mishra, Mr. Sahil
Yadav and Mr. Nidhish Gupta,
Advocates
versus
MR. RAVINDER KUMAR BAID .....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 18.02.2026
CRL.M.As. 5471-5472/2026 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 1366/2026, CRL.M.A. 5470/2026 (Stay)
3. By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner seeks quashing of
entire criminal proceedings aminating from the Criminal Complaint being
CC No.17587/2016, filed by the respondent against the petitioner herein
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is
currently pending before the learned JMFC (NI-Act)-01 West District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi (learned Trial Court).
4. Though the petitioner has raised various grounds, however, the
learned counsel for the petitioner while addressing arguments has
specifically relied upon the judgment passed in CRL.M.C. 2928/2021
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 19/02/2026 at 20:39:35
dated 28.02.2025 titled “Satish Kumar Pawa vs. State of NCT of Delhi &
Ors.“: 2025:DHC:1511, wherein under similar issues, involving the
petitioner albeit with a different entity as also after taking into
consideration under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C) as also Section 225 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932, a co-
ordinate bench of this Court has passed an order, after recording as under:-
“59. Though, Section 257 empowers a Complainant to
withdraw the case on sufficient grounds against ‘all or any
of the accused persons’, but it has to be understood in the
right perspective. As already discussed above, the liability
was that of the Partnership Firm, against whom, in the first
instance, the Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. has not
been framed. Furthermore, as already held above, the
liability was that of the Partnership Firm for which both
Respondent No. 4/Sant Lal Aggarwal and the
Petitioner/Satish Kumar Pawa were jointly and severally
liable for the liability incurred by the Firm. The Settlement
with one partner could not have been apportioned in the
manner it has been done in the present case.
60. Consequently, when the Complaint is withdrawn under
Section 257 by the Complainant as against Respondent No.
4/Sant Lal Aggarwal, the same is essentially withdrawn
against the Partnership Firm, which is originally liable for
the debt owed to the complainant.
61. In view of Section 25 of the Partnership Act, the
Partners, accused persons herein, are jointly and severally
liable for the acts of the Partnership Firm/M/s Jagat
Overseas.
62. In the present case, both the partners, namely,
Petitioner/Satish Kumar Pawa and the Respondent No.
4/Sant Lal Agarwal, were jointly and severally responsible
for the liability incurred by the Partnership Firm, meaning
thereby that each is liable for the entire liability individually
as well as jointly. The partners may have agreed to beThis 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 19/02/2026 at 20:39:35
entitled to the share profit & loss in a particular ratio, but
their legal liability towards the third person is joint and
several and there can be no apportionment.”
5. Considering the aforesaid, as also since the present petition is also
raising the similar issues, upon the petitioner taking requisite steps within
a period of one week, issue notice to the respondent by all permissible
modes, returnable on 22.07.2026.
6. Keeping in view the nature of the facts and disputes involved, the
parties are hereby called upon to file their respective written synopsis
instead of reply/ rejoinder not exceeding three pages, giving a
chronological list of dates and events and relevant documents, if any,
alongwith duly highlighted judgments setting out the propositions of law
therein, they wish to rely upon two weeks prior to the next date of hearing.
7. Let the TCR in the digitized form also be requisitioned within a
period of four weeks.
8. In the meanwhile, considering that the primary issue arising in the
present petition has been squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in CRL.M.C. 2928/2021 dated 28.02.2025,
there shall be a stay of the proceedings in Criminal Complaint being CC
No.17587/2016, filed by the respondent against the petitioner herein under
Section 138 of NI Act, pending before the learned Trial Court, till the next
date of hearing.
9. Renotify on 22.07.2026.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
FEBRUARY 18, 2026/So
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 19/02/2026 at 20:39:35
