Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 10 CC NI ACT 9179/2023
M/S MAXGTECH Vs. M/S OPTO TECH
08.12.2025
Today undersigned is also working as Link JMFC to Ld. JMFC-10
Present: Sh. Shakib, Ld. Counsel for complainant through VC.
Accused Proprietor (accused no. 2) in person.
Accused no. 3 and 4 were never summoned.
Sh. Deepak Tanwar, Ld. Counsel for accused.
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
cited at serial no. 1 to 5 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
-- 1 of 2 --
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.
Offence being bailable, accused is admitted to bail subject to
furnishing of personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like
amount. At this stage, the accused seeks some time to furnish surety. Personal bonds
furnished considered and accepted till the next date of hearing.
Considering the defence disclosed by the accused, no purpose shall be
served in keeping the matter for CE. Moreover, no application u/s 145 (2) of NI Act
has been moved on behalf of accused for cross-examination of the complainant’s
witness.
Accordingly, the matter be proceeded in terms of the judgment passed
by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Rajesh Agggarwal Vs. State & Anr. (2010).
Parties are at liberty to explore possibility of settlement out of court.
Put up for settlement if any/recording of S. A. u/s 313 Cr.P.C/further
proceedings on 10.03.2026.
(URVI GUPTA)
J.M.F.C.-01(N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/08.12.2025
-- 2 of 2 --