Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 65 CC NI ACT/9189/2025
CNR NO.:-DLCT020218822025
HARSHIT SINGH
VS.
POOJA SHUKLA
04.10.2025
Present : Sh. Anuj Kumar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the
complainant.
In complaince of the previous order, e-filing history filed.
Taken on record.
Ld. Proxy Counsel for complainant submits that as per the
recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme court tilted as
Sanjabij Tari v.
Kishore S. Borcar and Anr Crl. No.1755/2010, pronounced on
25.09.2025 the compliance under proviso to Section 223 BNSS has been
dispensed with in the cases pertaining to Negotiable Instruments Act.
In view of the aforementioned submission, previous
compliance of order dated 10.07.2025 stands dispensed.
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.
-- 1 of 1 --