Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 75CC NI ACT/3424/2026
DLCT020072352026
BANSAL CREDITS LIMITED Vs. SUHAIL
13.05.2026
Fresh complaint case received by way of assignment. It be checked and
registered.
Present : Ms. Anjana Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Mr. R.P. Tripathi, AR for complainant.
Affidavit qua serive of legal demand notice filed. Taken on
record.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
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.”
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
-- 1 of 2 --
accused mentioned, I hereby take cognizance of the 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 NI Act.
Let accused SUHAIL 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.”
Re-list the matter for 28.10.2026 for further proceedings.
(Ravisha Sidana)
JMFC, NI Act-06,
Central District, THC
13.05.2026
-- 2 of 2 --