Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: DLND10093332024
CR No.637/24
Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs.
M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
Page 1 of 6
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.637/24
In the matter of :-
1. Usha Goel
W/o. Sh. Hari Kishan Goel
R/o. C-7, First Floor, Block C,
Vivek Vihar, Phase-1,
East Delhi, Delhi-110093 …Revisionist No.1
(accused before the Ld. Trial Court)
2. Basant Goel
W/o. Sh. Hari Kishan Goel
Goel Medicos,
8A/460, Durgapuri Extension
Loni Road, Shahdara,
Delhi-110093
e-mail id : basantgoel103@gmail.com
Phone no.:9958574444 …Revisionist No.2
(accused before the Ld. Trial Court)
(Both the accused represented
by Sh. Tarun Nanda, Advocate)
Versus
M/s. Health Care at Home India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its authorised representative/signatory,
4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan,
10 Rouse Avenue, Central Delhi,
New Delhi-110092
e-mail : Sachin.finance@hcah.in
Contact No.011-49854426 ..…….Respondent
(Represented by Ms.
Garima and Ms.
Yashita Rastogi,
Advocates)
-- 1 of 6 --
DLND10093332024
CR No.637/24
Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs.
M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
Page 2 of 6
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 438 BNSS 2023
Date of institution : 20.11.2024
Date when judgment reserved : 05.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.07.2025
J U D G M E N T : -
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 438
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the Petitioners, Smt.
Usha Goel (Petitioner No. 1) and Sh. Basant Goel (Petitioner No. 2),
seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the
Hon'ble Court of Ms. Padma Ladol, Ld. JMFC-04, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2147/2019 titled "M/s Healthcare at
Home India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goel Medicos." The impugned order allowed
an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.), filed by the Respondent, summoning Petitioner No. 1 as
an additional accused in the said complaint case under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act).
Background of the Case :
2. The Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section
142 of the N.I. Act on 06.02.2019 against Goel Medicos, alleging
dishonor of a cheque issued in part discharge of liability, which was
returned unpaid on 19.12.2018 with the remark "funds insufficient."
Initially, Sh. Basant Goel (Petitioner No. 2) was arrayed as the sole
proprietor of Goel Medicos. However, an application filed by Petitioner
No. 2 on 27.11.2019 under Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act clarified that
Smt. Usha Goel (Petitioner No. 1) was the actual sole proprietor of Goel
-- 2 of 6 --
DLND10093332024
CR No.637/24
Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs.
M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
Page 3 of 6
Medicos. Despite this, the Respondent moved an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 15.12.2023, seeking to implead Petitioner No. 1
as an additional accused, which was allowed vide the impugned order
dated 03.09.2024, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Petitioners' Contentions :
3. The Petitioners submit that the Respondent was aware of Smt. Usha
Goel being the sole proprietor of Goel Medicos as early as 25.04.2019,
when the Respondent filed a recovery suit (CS No. 360/2019, later CS
(Comm) 256/2020) naming Smt. Usha Goel as the sole proprietor.
Further, the application under Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act filed on
27.11.2019 explicitly stated this fact. The Petitioners argue that the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., filed on 15.12.2023, suffers from
an inordinate delay of approximately 1,775 days (4.8 years) from the
date the cause of action arose (03.02.2019) and is an attempt to cure a
fatal lacuna in the complaint case after adverse judgments in connected
cases (CC No. 3336/2019 and 3337/2019), where Petitioner No. 2 was
acquitted on 25.07.2023. The Petitioners rely on the principles
governing Section 319 Cr.P.C., as elucidated in N. Harihara Krishnan v.
J. Thomas (2018) 13 SCC 663, to contend that the discretionary power
to summon additional accused must be exercised cautiously, especially
in cases under the N.I. Act, which are quasi-criminal and require strict
adherence to statutory timelines.
Respondent's Contentions :
4. The Respondent denies the allegations of delay and mala fide intent,
asserting that Petitioner No. 2 misrepresented himself as the sole
proprietor, leading to the initial complaint being filed against him. The
-- 3 of 6 --
DLND10093332024
CR No.637/24
Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs.
M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
Page 4 of 6
Respondent argues that the demand notice was issued to Goel Medicos
through its sole proprietor, and no prejudice is caused by impleading
Petitioner No. 1, as she is the actual sole proprietor. The Respondent
relies on Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289,
to justify the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., contending that the
court has the power to summon additional persons who appear to have
committed the offence during the trial.
5. Issues for Consideration :
a. Whether the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 is legally sustainable in
light of the delay in filing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.?
b. Whether the Respondent's knowledge of Petitioner No. 1 as the sole
proprietor since 25.04.2019 or 27.11.2019 affects the validity of the
impugned order?
6. Analysis :
a. Delay in Filing the Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. :
The cause of action for the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act arose
on 03.02.2019, following the dishonor of the cheque and the expiry of
the statutory notice period. The Respondent filed the application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 15.12.2023, approximately 1,775 days later. The
Respondent was aware of Smt. Usha Goel as the sole proprietor of Goel
Medicos since at least 25.04.2019, when it filed the recovery suit (CS
No. 360/2019) naming her as such. This fact was further reinforced by
the application under Section 145(2) N.I. Act filed on 27.11.2019. The
Respondent has not provided any justifiable reason for the delay of over
four years in seeking to implead Petitioner No. 1. Hon’ble Supreme
Court in N. Harihara Krishnan v. JA Thomas (2018) 13 SCC 663
-- 4 of 6 --
DLND10093332024
CR No.637/24
Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs.
M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
Page 5 of 6
emphasized that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary
and must be exercised to achieve criminal justice, considering the stage
of the trial and the evidence available. The inordinate delay, coupled
with the Respondent's prior knowledge, suggests an attempt to rectify
deficiencies in the original complaint after adverse outcomes in related
cases, which is impermissible.
b. Respondent's Knowledge of the Proprietor :
The Respondent's own filings, including the recovery suit and
subsequent pleadings, demonstrate that it was aware of Smt. Usha
Goel’s proprietorship since April 2019. The application under Section
145(2) N.I. Act filed in November 2019 further clarified this fact. The
Respondent's claim that Petitioner No. 2 misrepresented himself as the
sole proprietor does not hold, as the demand notice was addressed to
Goel Medicos through its sole proprietor, and no evidence suggests that
Petitioner No. 2 actively misled the Respondent. The failure to implead
Petitioner No. 1 earlier, despite this knowledge, undermines the
bonafides of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Findings :
7. The impugned order dated 03.09.2024 fails to appreciate the inordinate
delay of approximately 1,775 days in filing the application under Section
319 Cr.P.C., despite the Respondent’s knowledge of Petitioner No. 1’s
proprietorship since April 2019. The application appears to be an
afterthought to cure deficiencies in the complaint case following the
acquittal of Petitioner No. 2 in related cases (CC No. 3336/2019 and
3337/2019) on 25.07.2023. The Respondent’s failure to initiate
prosecution against Petitioner No. 1 within the statutory period under
-- 5 of 6 --
DLND10093332024
CR No.637/24
Usha Goel & Anr.
Vs.
M/s. Health Care at Home IndiaPvt. Ltd.
Page 6 of 6
Section 138 N.I. Act, coupled with the lack of new evidence, renders the
impugned order legally unsustainable. The principles laid down in N.
Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas, (2018) 13 SCC 663, underscore the
need for cautious exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
particularly in quasi-criminal proceedings under the N.I. Act, where
strict compliance with statutory timelines is essential.
Conclusion :
8. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC-04, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2147/2019, is hereby
set aside. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the
Respondent is dismissed. The records of the complaint case shall be
remitted to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the
law.
9. No order as to costs.
10.The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
11.Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
12.TCR, if any, be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment.
Announced in the open Court
on 08th of July 2025 (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts
Delhi/08.07.2025
-- 6 of 6 --