Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 32 CC NI ACT 7273/2023
SANJAY SHAH Vs. HARI KUMAR
10.12.2025
Today undersigned is also working as Duty JMFC.
Present: Sh. Mohit Kumar and Sh. Ashish Kaushik, Ld. Counsels for
complainant.
None for proposed accused.
Complainant has filed the affidavit of service of notice of condonation
delivered through Whatsapp. Taken on record.
E-filing history is also filed.
Considering service of notice of condonation on the proposed accused,
it is assumed that the proposed accused does not wish to argue on the point of
condonation,
No reply to application for condonation has been filed by the proposed
accused. It is accordingly inferred that the proposed accused does not with to file
any reply to the same.
Arguments heard on behalf of the complainant side.
It is submitted by complainant side vide application in question and
oral arguments that there is a delay of 76 days in filing of the present case, which is
stated to be because of file being misplaced.
On the other hand, proposed accused has not addressed any kind of
argument. The fact thereof has not been opposed by him. Hence, his right to argue
on the point of condonation stands closed.
Submissions heard. Filing history placed on record. Perusal of the
record shows that the delay in filing of present case.
Though, delay in filing the complaint is apparent, but in the opinion of
this Court, no genuine claim of any side should fail due to mere technical reason and
since reasonable explanation has been furnished for delay in filing of complaint, so
same is hereby condoned in the interest of justice.
-- 1 of 2 --
File perused. All the statutory requirements under NI Act are complied
with. After perusal of the entire record, this court is of the considered opinion that
prima facie case punishable u/s 138 of NI Act is made out against the accused.
Cognizance of the same is taken.
Perusal of case file reveals that cheque in question was presented for
encashment and was returned dishonored vide return memo. Accused has failed to
make payment within the legally prescribed period despite the service of legal
demand notice upon him. The complaint is within the territorial jurisdiction of this
court and is within limitation. Enquiry u/s 225 BNSS conducted by scrutinizing
documents.
Arguments on summoning heard. Following the law laid down in A.C.
Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2024) 11 SCC 790, complaint,
evidence by way of affidavit and documents considered. In view of complaint,
documents produced and verification in the form of affidavit there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding further against the accused for offence punishable u/s 138 NI
Act.
Issue summons to the accused, on filing of PF within three months,
through all modes.
Complainant is directed to supply the soft copy of complaint and
documents to the accused well in time.
In case of online service, complainant is directed to file requisite
affidavit with contact details of the accused and certificate U/s 63 BSA to show due
service through online mode. Complainant is directed to file proof of service.
Put up for appearance of accused/ framing of notice/furnishing of
surety on 04.08.2026.
(URVI GUPTA)
J.M.F.C.-01(N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/10.12.2025
-- 2 of 2 --