The High Court of Delhi has suspended the operation of an order on sentence for a petitioner convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to enable the filing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, noted that the revision petitions had remained pending before the High Court for approximately 12 years.
Background
The petitioner, Dhruv Varma, was convicted in three connected complaints (CC Nos. 669/1/2007, 670/1/2007, and 671/1/2007) for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’). These complaints were decided via a common judgment by the Trial Court on October 11, 2012. On October 31, 2012, the Trial Court directed the applicant to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay ₹50,00,000 in compensation for each complaint.
On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the conviction on September 30, 2014, but modified the sentence to a consolidated compensation of ₹1,00,00,000. Subsequently, the High Court, in a judgment dated February 27, 2026, set aside the Appellate Court’s modification and restored the Trial Court’s original sentence from 2012.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the petitioner intends to challenge the High Court’s judgment dated February 27, 2026, before the Supreme Court. It was argued that while a 90-day limitation period exists for filing an SLP, several factors necessitated an extension of the suspension of sentence:
- Judicial Vacations: The Supreme Court was not at full strength between March 2, 2026, and March 8, 2026, due to vacations.
- Court Closures: The Supreme Court was scheduled to remain closed on March 26 and 27, 2026, causing difficulty in expeditious filing.
- Sentence Already Served: The applicant has already undergone one year of incarceration. The remaining maximum sentence is a three-month default term in case of non-payment of compensation.
The applicant sought an extension of the suspension till May 27, 2026, to coincide with the expiry of the limitation period.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The court noted that in its previous judgment dated February 27, 2026, no specific direction was issued regarding the suspension of the sentence to enable an SLP. However, the court took serious note of the timeline of the litigation.
The court observed:
“Considering that the complaint case pertains to the year 2007, the revision petitions remained pending before this Court since 2014, i.e., for about 12 years, and further taking into account that the applicant has already undergone incarceration in relation to the present case for a substantial period of time and intends to file an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court…”
The court referred to the restored Trial Court order which mandated:
“…Convict No.2 namely Dhruv Varma is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year. He is further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs to the complainant within one month from today, failing which he will undergo a further simple imprisonment for 3 months…”
Decision
The High Court exercised its powers under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (read with Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (read with Section 528 of the BNSS).
The court held:
“…this Court is inclined to suspend the operation of the order on sentence dated 31.10.2012 till 28.04.2026, whereafter the applicant shall be liable to serve the remaining sentence, in accordance with law.”
The applications were disposed of with the direction that the judgment be uploaded forthwith.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Dhruv Varma & Anr. v. JK Varma & Anr.
- Case Numbers: CRL.REV.P. 723/2014, 724/2014, 725/2014
- Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Date: March 27, 2026
