Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 22 CC NI ACT 6158/2024
Tarun Sharma Vs. Suresh Tiwari Alias Suresh Benimadhav Tiwari
25.03.2026
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. M. M. Kumar, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Accused proprietor in person.
Sh. Naheem, Ld. Counsel for accused.
NBWs issued against the accused was stayed till today.
Order dated 17.03.2026 bears the residential details of the accused.
Today, NBWs against the accused have been received back unexecuted
on all the addresses.
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 recorded separately.
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.
At this stage, Admission/denial of documents by the accused under
Section 330 BNSS recoded separately. On the basis of the same, the five witnesses
-- 1 of 2 --
cited at serial no. 2 to 6 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.
Since the accused has disputed his signatures on the cheque,
complainant is at liberty to move an appropriate application for summoning bank
witness if any by NDOH.
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. Surety bonds of Rs. 20,000/- has been furnished. Original RC taken on
record in CC NO. 6157/2024.
Accused side submits that there is no possibility of settlement.
Put up for CE on 30.09.2026.
(URVI GUPTA)
J.M.F.C.-01(N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/25.03.2026
-- 2 of 2 --