Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 44 CC NI ACT / 9298/2024
Yogesh Malik Vs. Mr Nivesh Panchal
28.05.2025
Present: Ms. Stuti Wason, Ld. Counsel for the complainant through VC.
Sh. K. B. Rao & Ms. Ambika, Ld. Counsel for accused alongwith accused.
Surety Jyoti Panchal in person.
Offence being bailable, accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail
bond/ surety bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of like amount. FDR in the name
of Jyoti Shokeen is furnished, considered and accepted.
It is submitted by accused side that they have received the copy of complaint
and annexures.
Heard on notice. On a perusal of the complaint and supporting documents, this
court is of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds to frame notice against the accused and
proceed to trial. The factum of issuance & dishonour of cheque in question, the service of legal
demand notice, failure of payment despite demand, liability and cumulative effect thereof
culminating into an offence U/s 138 NI Act have been explained to the accused in vernacular.
The attention of the accused has been drawn to the evidence appearing against him and to each
document relied upon by the complainant.
The plea of defence of accused is also recorded.
At this stage, oral prayer for cross examination of complainant witness made by
the accused. Keeping in mind the legislative intent as incorporated in Section 145(2) NI Act and
the defence disclosed by the accused in his plea of defence, the court is of the view that accused
is having sufficient ground to cross examine the complainant. Accordingly, oral prayer for
cross examination of complainant witness of the accused is hereby allowed.
Admission/denial of documents by the accused under Section 294 Cr. P.C.
recoded separately. On the basis of the same, the three witnesses cited at serail no. 2, 3 & 4 in
list of witnesses by complainant for same stands dropped from said list.
This court further does not deem it appropriate/ desirable to try the case
summarily since sentence for imprisonment exceeding one year may have to be passed, if the
trial results in conviction, therefore, this case would be tried as summons trial case.
Be put up for CE/ further proceedings on 06.08.2025.
(ARADHANA)
J.M.F.C.01(N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/28.05.2025
-- 1 of 1 --