LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sumeet Saluja vs. Diat Agro Holding Pvt Ltd

Criminal Miscellaneous Case · CNR No. DLHC010495142026Decided 13 Oct 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.M.C. 7734/2026CNR: DLHC010495142026
Justice Girish Kathpalia

Background

The petitioner, facing a cheque-dishonour complaint case before a Magistrate, had already lost an identical petition seeking to quash the same proceedings back in 2022. He later also lost a revision petition before the Sessions Court challenging the Magistrate's refusal to drop the case. He then filed this fresh petition before the High Court, again asking for the same relief, arguing that since the trial had since started and one witness had been partly questioned, circumstances had changed enough to justify a second attempt.

Decision Breakdown

The Court found this argument "totally absurd," noting it would let an accused approach the High Court after every witness is partly examined. It also held the petition legally barred: the law (Section 438(3) BNSS, equivalent to the old Section 397(3) CrPC) expressly forbids a second revision on the same issue, and that bar cannot be bypassed by dressing the same request up as an "inherent powers" petition unless there is proof of gross injustice, which was absent here. Concluding the petition was filed with a "mischievous" intent to re-litigate an already-settled issue, the judge dismissed it and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000, payable to a government welfare fund.

Lesson Learnt

You cannot keep approaching higher courts with the same request after it has already been finally rejected, just because the case has moved forward in the meantime: the law caps how many times a point can be re-argued, and trying to sneak a repeat challenge through can result in a financial penalty, not just a dismissal.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Chetan vs. State Govt. of NCT Delhi

The Court noted the relationship appeared consensual, that the girl had gone with Chetan voluntarily, and that her parents no longer wished to continue the prosecution. It relied on a recent Supreme Court ruling criticizing the misuse of the POCSO Act to punish genuine adolescent relationships that families initially object to, and a similar Delhi High Court precedent. Given these factors, the near-complete trial evidence, and over four months already in custody, the Court granted regular bail with standard conditions.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gulshan @ Khati vs. State of NCT of Delhi

The Court found that Gulshan had effectively misled the trial court by only slipping in a vague line about the pending High Court case, rather than disclosing it clearly, and had no real explanation for bypassing the High Court. The Court held this amounted to playing a fraud on both courts, dismissed his bail application outright, and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial court, asking it to explain within a week how it came to grant interim bail without being properly told about the pending High Court proceedings.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Jitesh @ Jitu vs. State NCT of Delhi

The State argued the wife's surgery wasn't serious enough to justify the full 30 days of interim bail requested. The Court verified the medical documents and surgery date and found the circumstances justified temporary release in the interest of justice, but granted only 10 days rather than the 30 requested, with strict conditions including a firm surrender deadline (with a built-in fallback date if the surgery was postponed).

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Pramila & Anr. vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The three complainants appeared in person, were identified by the investigating officer, and personally confirmed to the judge (in Hindi) that they had compromised all disputes and no longer wished to pursue prosecution. The State raised no objection. The Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Vijay Kumar @ Babloo vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court noted the prison rule barring parole after jumping bail is not absolute: it allows parole where "special circumstances" exist. The rejection order was quashed because it failed to consider the special circumstances raised (the son's situation), ignored the petitioner's good conduct and timely surrender after a 2025 parole, and relied on an outdated address when a new, verifiable one had since been given. The Court ordered police verification of the new address within two weeks and directed prison authorities to pass a fresh, reasoned decision within four weeks.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Sonu @ Kishan Chand vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Monu @ Naveen vs. State (G.N.C.T. of Delhi)

The Court granted bail to both brothers, noting that the injured persons had compromised and did not oppose bail, that most of the trial evidence had already been recorded, and that one brother had been in custody since 2023 and the other since 2022. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that "bail is not to be withheld as a punishment," the Court held that continued detention would be unjustly punitive given these circumstances. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with surety and standard conditions.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case