Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 39CC NI ACT/8531/2024
CNR NO.:-DLCT020261102024
ANKUSH JAIN
VS.
SHUBHAM GOSWAMI
15.10.2025
Present : Sh.Nikhil Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Priya Ranjan Roy, Ld. Counsel for the accused with
accused.
Application filed for waiver of costs, imposed vide
previous order.
Considering the grounds stated in the application, the
same is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Application filed under Section 268 BNSS, on behalf of
accused seeking discharge from the present case. Copy supplied to
Ld. Counsel for complainant through whatsapp. In support,
documents and the citations, relied by the accused filed.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that he does not
wish to file formal reply and would argue the application
straightaway. He submits that Section 268 BNSS is applicable for
the warrant triable cases and does not apply to the present case,
which is summons triable and therefore, the aforesaid application is
not maintainable at its threshold. He further submits that the
grounds stated in the application are the triable issues and therefore,
it would require adjudication on the merits of the case. In support,
reliance is placed upon judgement titled as
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal
Jindal Crl.91/2002. Citation taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for accused draws the attention of the court
to the para no.2 of the application and submits that although, the
-- 1 of 2 --
father’s name of the accused is the same but the address pertaining
to the accused is different in the loan agreement and the present case
and therefore, the identity of the complainant is disputed as the
transaction of the accused was with ‘Ankush Jain s/o Ashok Jain’.
In support, Aadhar proof annexed as Annexure A-1. He further
submits that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present
case as the present case has been filed by the Ankush Jain, who
merely was the witness of the loan agreement dated 20.02.2023.
Lastly, Ld. Counsel for accused submits that the value of the
property in question is not more than Rs.10,00,000/-, whereas
liability of Rs.12,00,000/- has been shown pending against the
accused. There is no source of funds cited in the complaint or the
evidence affidavit of the amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, arranged in cash
by the complainant.
In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that
the loan agreement does not pertain to the complainant in the
present case and is a altogether different transaction and further the
factum of complainant being the witness to the loan agreement is a
triable issue.
Re-list the matter for order on discharge / framing of
notice on 28.01.2026.
It is further clarified that if the application gets
dismissed on next date of hearing, notice shall be framed against the
accused on the same day and no further adjournment shall be
granted.
(Ravisha Sidana)
JMFC, NI Act-06,
Central District, THC/15.10.2025
-- 2 of 2 --