Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CC NI ACT 1373/2024
Sudhir Kumar Vs. Vikrant Chaudhary
26.02.2024
Reader of this court is on leave today.
Present : Ms. Priya Kakran, Ld. counsel for the
complainant.
1. The matter is listed today for consideration.
2. Arguments Heard. Entire record including the
complaint and the annexed documents perused thoroughly. It
is alleged that accused has issued the cheque(s) in question to
the complainant in discharge of a legal liability. On
presentation, the same got dishonoured. Thereafter, demand
notice was sent to the accused by the complainant.
Thereafter, the accused has failed to make the payment
within 15 days of receipt of the legal notice as per provisions
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thereafter, the
present complaint has been filed by the complainant.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as
A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 11 SCC 790
has held as under,
“29. From a conjoint reading of Sections 138, 142 and 145 of
the N.I. Act as well as Section 200 of the Code, it is clear that
it is open to the Magistrate to issue process on the basis of the
contents of the complaint, documents in support thereof and
the affidavit submitted by the complainant in support of the
-- 1 of 4 --
complaint….
…33.4 In the light of Section 145 of the NI Act, it is open to
the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of
affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint
under Section 138 of the NI Act and the Magistrate is neither
mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain
present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant or
his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not
to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the NI
Act.”
Similar directions have been issued in Indian
Bank Association & Ors. v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 590
and Rajesh Agarwal v. State (2010) 171 DLT 51.
4. In light of the aforesaid decision, there is no need to
examine the complainant before issuing process to the
accused. Accordingly, on consideration of the complaint,
annexed documents and the verification affidavit of the
complainant, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie
there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
accused mentioned below for the commission of offence
under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. There
is no requirement for examination of the complainant or
witnesses for purpose of issuance of process in view of the
above-mentioned directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and
Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In terms of inquiry conducted
under Section 202 CrPC, all the statutory requirements have
-- 2 of 4 --
been complied with. The complaint is filed within the period
of limitation as prescribed under Section 142(1)(b) of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. Let accused Vikrant Chaudhary be summoned
through approved registered courier, speed post and e-mail
for 22.07.2024. Complainant is directed to file PF and take
steps within 15 days. The Ahlmad is directed to issue the
summons only after ensuring that the same has been done. In
case, the complainant provides the E-mail address and the
Whatsapp No. of the accused, the Ahlmad is directed to send
the e-copy of summons to the Nazarat Branch for service
through E-mail and Whatsapp. Further, complainant is
directed to file an affidavit verifying the correctness of email
ID and the Whatsapp No. of the accused. Nazarat Branch is
directed to file report regarding service of summons through
e-mail and Whatsapp before the NDOH. If the complainant
wishes to serve the accused personally on his Whatsapp
number and E-Mail ID, he is directed to file an affidavit of
compliance with respect to service through e-mail as well as
Whatsapp.
6. Complainant is further directed to place the tracking
report of summons sent through speed post on the next date.
In the event the house/office/premises is found to be
locked/refusal to accept the service/any other contingency the
process be served through affixation in terms of Section 65,
CrPC.
-- 3 of 4 --
7. As per the guidelines laid down as in the case titled as
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H AIR 2010 (SC) 1907,
Ahlmad is directed to make a mention on the summons
issued against the accused (by adding separate sheet, if
required) that :
(a) Accused can make an application for compounding of the
offence at the first or second hearing of the case and if such
an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the
court without imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for
compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for
compounding is made before the court at a subsequent stage,
compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the
accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to
be deposited as a condition for compounding with the District
Legal Services Authority.
(Katyayini Sharma Kandwal)
Metropolitan Magistrate/NI Act -03
Central/Delhi//26.02.2024
-- 4 of 4 --