Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 36 CC NI ACT / 4365/2025 RAVINDER SONI Vs. RAJEEV MITTAL
23.05.2025
Present: Ms. Jyoti, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Court notice issued to proposed accused on NDOH received back served.
Despite service, proposed accused has not appeared before the court.
Since the notice has been served and proposed accused has chosen to not
appear, the condition stipulated u/s 223 BNSS in respect of giving an opportunity to the
proposed accused to be heard before taking cognizance stands satisfied.
Heard. Entire record including the complaint and the annexed documents
perused thoroughly. It is alleged that accused has issued the cheque in question bearing
no. 000013 dated 27.11.2024 for Rs. 8,50,000/- to the complainant in discharge of
liability. On presentation, the same got dishonoured vide return memo dated
06.12.2024 for the reason “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, demand notice dated
21.12.2024 was sent to the accused by the complainant. Despite service/ deemed
service of said notice, accused has failed to make the payment within 15 days as per
provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as
A.C. Narayanan
vs. 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 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.”
-- 1 of 2 --
Similar directions have been issued in
Indian Bank Association & Ors. vs.
Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 590 and
Rajesh Agarwal vs. State (2010) 171 DLT 51.
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 been complied with. The complaint is filed within the
period of limitation as prescribed under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Let accused Rajeev Mittal be summoned on filing of PF, RC/ Speed Post/
approved Courier service/E-mail within 30 days for
NDOH.
Complainant is directed to place the tracking report of summons sent
through speed post on record 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.
As per the guidelines laid down as in the case titled as
Damodar S. Prabhu
Vs. 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
“accused can make an application for compounding of the offence at the first and
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.”
Put up for purpose fixed on 29.08.2025.
(Deshna Golechha)
JMFC (NI)07 (Central)
23.05.2025
-- 2 of 2 --