CRL.M.C./7778/2025 of HDFC BANK LTD. THROUGH ASHUTOSH BISHWAS Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO & ORS. . on 28 September 2026

O R D E R

%

28.09.2026

1. The present petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 11/2025 dated 22.02.2025 registered at P.S. Cyber South, Saket under Section 223(a) of BNSS and all consequential proceedings.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is a Backup Branch Manager of HDFC Bank, and that the FIR arose from alleged non-compliance of an order dated 31.08.2024 passed by learned CJM1, South, Saket directing the HDFC Bank to release Rs. 10,013/- held in account no. 50100507862911. 1 Chief Judicial Magistrate

3. It is stated that the then Branch Manager of HDFC Bank, who received the notice from the Court and was responsible for compliance, was however, serving notice period. He thereafter resigned, resulting in the post remaining vacant and the other staff was unaware of the directions received from the Court. It was thereafter that the petitioner assumed charge of the branch.

4. It is stated that the Bank’s counsel also could not have his appearance recorded on 20.02.2025 due to an advocates’ strike, leading to no appearance on behalf of the HDFC Bank. Consequently, the concerned court directed registration of the subject FIR and issued Non-bailable Warrant [‘NBW’] against the Branch Manager.

5. It is stated that the petitioner herein, who was holding a backup charge of the Branch, came to know of the FIR upon receiving notice dated 06.03.2025 under Section 41A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’]. He thereafter joined investigation, and moved an application for cancellation of the NBW. Then, on 28.03.2025, the petitioner informed the court of learned CJM that the Bank had complied with the order dated 31.08.2024 by releasing the entire amount of Rs. 10,013/- and also deposited Rs. 5,000/- pursuant to the NBW. It is stated that the proceedings in the underlying miscellaneous criminal matter were thereafter disposed of and the NBW was cancelled.

6. It is stated that therefore, the underlying order dated 31.08.2024 having been fully complied with by the petitioner and no dispute surviving with the Bank. Thus, continuation of the FIR would serve no useful purpose and would cause grave hardship to the petitioner.

7. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Biswas has joined the proceedings through video conferencing (VC) link. He states that he tenders his unconditional apology for the inaction and omission. He states that it was inadvertent and not deliberate. He submits that he has put in place an SOP to ensure that directions or orders of the Court are received duly and promptly attended to. He prays that the subject FIR and proceedings be quashed.

8. Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned APP submits that State has no objection to the relief sought in the present petition. She submits however the petitioner be put to terms by imposing costs.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. In the present case, the criminal proceedings arise out of a non- compliance of an order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the CJM, which has since been complied with. Having considered the submissions of the petitioner, it appears that the non-compliance was not deliberate but caused due to lack of existence of SOP at the branch to attend to Court orders. However, subsequently, the petitioner asserts that he has taken steps to comply with the order dated 31.08.2024. The inaction, therefore, has been resolved and continuation of the FIR does not involve any overriding public interest. In view of the complete compliance of the order dated 31.08.2024 and the disposal of the criminal miscellaneous case arising out of the subject FIR, continuation of the proceedings would be an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer. The petitioner is a branch manager and has tendered his unconditional apology. The petition is, therefore, a fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS [Re: Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.2].

11. However, since the State machinery has been put to motion due to the laxity at the branch, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost. The petitioner is directed to make payment of a total cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) within three

(3) weeks. In this regard, an affidavit of compliance shall be filed within four (4) weeks from today.

12. Subject to due payment of costs within the time granted, the FIR No.11/2025 dated 22/02/2025 registered at Police Station (PS) Cyber South, Saket for offences under Section 223(a) of the BNSS and proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.

13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

14. Pending application(s) is disposed of.

15. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/msh/AM 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466, at paragraph no. 29.