Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC NI ACT / 5087/2026
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs. Capital
Enterprises Through Shakeel
25.04.2026
Fresh complaint case has been received. It be checked and registered as per
rules.
Present : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Matter is at the stage of consideration.
Vide judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari
Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (criminal appeal no. 1755/2010) decided on
25.09.2025, it was held that there is no requirement of sending a notice to
the proposed accused at pre-cognizance stage for offence U/s 138 NI Act.
Ld. Counsel for complainant has filed GST details of the
accused. Same be taken on record.
As per the GST details Mr. Shakeel is the proprietor of
Capital Enterprises.
Complainant has been heard.
Entire record including the complaint and the annexed
documents perused thoroughly.
It is alleged that accused has initiated the electronic funds
transfer mandate in question to the complainant in discharge of liability.
However, the same was not executed. Thereafter, demand notice 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 Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. The complaint is
filed within the period of limitation. On consideration of the complaint,
annexed documents and verification affidavit of the complainant, this Court
is of the opinion that prima facie there are sufficient grounds for taking
cognizance of offence under Section 25, Payment and Settlement Systems
Act, 2007.
Since the affidavit of the AR is available on record. PSE
dispensed with. Arguments on the point of summoning heard.
Upon consideration of the record, this Court is of the prima
facie view that there are sufficient grounds for summoning of the accused
persons.
Accordingly, let accused Mr. Shakeel (proprietor of Capital
Enterprises) be summoned on filing of PF, RC/ Speed Post/ approved
Courier service/ E-mail within 15 days for 04.11.2026. Process server is
directed to serve the summons through all modes.
Complainant is directed to place the tracking report of
summons sent through speed post on record on the next date. In the event
-- 1 of 2 --
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 in 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.”
Given the fact and circumstances of the case and the amount
involved, the Court finds that there is a possibility of settlement between the
parties.
Accordingly, Court notice be issued to the accused for Lok
Adalat sitting on 09.05.2026.
In alternate, put up for appearance of accused / further
proceedings on 04.11.2026.
(Pranjal Gangwar)
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-03
Central/Delhi/25.04.2026
-- 2 of 2 --