CRL.M.C./7235/2026 of GOPALA KRISHNA MOOTHA Vs M/S DEON NETWORKS PVT LTD on 25 September 2026

O R D E R

%

25.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 30229-30230/2026 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of. CRL.M.C. 7235/2026

3. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief: “a. Quash the entire proceedings emanating from the Complaint Case bearing CT. Cases No. 5241/2020 titled “M/s Deon Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s India Ahead News Pvt. Ltd.” pending before the Court of Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-01, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the Petitioner;

b. Set aside Order dated 24.07.2026 passed by the Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-01, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CT. Cases No. 5241/2020, qua the Petitioner;

c. Stay the proceedings before the Ld. JMFC (NI Act)-01, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi qua the Petitioner, including the operation and effect of the Order dated 24.07.2026, during the pendency of the present petition; and”

4. Briefly stated the facts are that the Respondent [ i.e., Complainant], who is stated to be engaged in satellite network distribution, instituted a complaint concerning the dishonour of three [3] cheques dated 31.08.2020, aggregating to Rs.2,08,62,000/-. The Petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No. 3 on account of his position as a Director of the M/s India Ahead News Private Limited [‘accused company’]. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons on 09.07.2024. The Petitioner entered appearance on 07.07.2025 and was granted exemption from physical appearance, subject to directions to appear physically on subsequent dates. On 19.02.2026, costs of Rs. 1,000/- were imposed due to the continued physical absence of the accused persons. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 24.07.2026, costs of Rs. 2,500/- were imposed upon the Petitioner, with a direction that warrants would be issued in the event of his failure to appear physically on next date of hearing, i.e., 28.09.2026.

5. After some arguments, Mr. Madhav Khurana, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, states that he is confining his prayers in the petition limited to permitting the Petitioner, who is 87 years old, to join the complaint proceedings through video conferencing [‘VC’].

5.1. He refers to the averments made at paragraph 7 of the petition to contend that it is medically precarious for the Petitioner to travel to attend the proceedings. He states that the Petitioner’s son, Mr. Goutam Mootha i.e., Accused No.2 in the complaint, has been physically appearing before the trial court, as and when directed. He states that, in addition, Accused No. 4

i.e., Mahesh Bigala, has also been physically appearing before the trial court, as and when directed.

6. He states that so far, all accused have been permitted to appear virtually since it is an E-court. He states that, however, on the next date of hearing, since the Petitioner has to deposit his bail bond as well as surety bond and the learned trial court has directed the Petitioner to remain physically present. He states that Rules of the E-court permits the accused to submit the bail bonds and surety bonds electronically and deposit the physical copy of the said bonds with the Ahlmad subsequently. He submits that Petitioner may be permitted to submit the said bonds electronically and the physical copy of the bail bonds will be duly deposited with the Ahlmad.

7. He states on instructions that the Petitioner’s son, Mr. Goutam Mootha i.e., accused no. 2 will be present physically to deposit his bail bond and surety bond. However, he prays for exemption of the Petitioner herein to do so in view of his medical health as averred in paragraph 7 of the petition.

8. He also states that the Petitioner will deposit all the costs imposed by the trial court till date, on the next date of hearing.

9. This Court has considered the submissions of the Petitioner.

10. The relevant para 7 of the petition reads as under: “7. That the Petitioner is an octogenarian, presently aged around 87 years, and is a permanent resident of Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. Since early 2017, the Petitioner was under the continuous treatment of neuro-physicians for debilitating and irreversible medical conditions. The medical evaluations, including EMG studies and X- rays from Brain & Spine Neuro Clinics and Star Hospitals, confirm that the Petitioner has been suffering from sensory-motor axonal polyradiculoneuropathy, Diabetic Neuropathy, severe degenerative osteoarthritis of the right knee joint and bilateral parasthesias in both lower limbs. A true copy of medical record dated 20.07.2017 issued by Star Hospitals is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P – 8. A true copy of medical record dated 21.06.2018 issued by Sunshine Hospitals is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P – 9. A true copy of medical record dated 01.05.2021 issued by Dr. R. Goutham Praveen is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P – 10.”

11. Having considered the said submissions and the annexures filed in support thereof, and keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner’s son Mr. Goutam Mootha has undertaken to remain physically present before the trial court on 28.09.2026 and subsequently as and when directed, the Petitioner herein is granted exemption from physical appearance before the trial court. The Petitioner will however, join the proceedings virtually.

12. This is also subject to the Petitioner’s further undertaking that his counsel will duly remain physically present before the trial court on each date of hearing to ensure that the proceedings continue without any interruption.

13. In case there is any breach of the undertakings given to this Court by the Petitioner on his behalf or by Mr. Goutam Mootha, the exemption granted through this order shall stand revoked, and such a revocation order can be passed by the learned trial court.

14. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed.

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 the order shall be insisted upon by any authority/entity or litigant. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/msh/aj