Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 36 Cc NI ACT / 9713/2026 Bd Credits Ltd Vs. Jainuddin and Another /0 (Sarai Rohilla)
DLCT020269882026
04.08.2026
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered as per
rules.
Present: Sh Gagan Jindal, Ld counsel for the complainant through VC.
This is a fresh case.
In the light of recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Sanjabij
Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952”, there shall be no requirement to
issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage.
Hence, appearance of proposed accused is hereby dispensed with.
Perusal of the record reveals that legal demand notice sent to the proposed
accused Jainuddin returned to the sender. However, Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that
the same has been sent at the last known address of the proposed accused. Submissions in this
regard has been made in the pre-summoning evidence affidavit. Perused.
Accordingly, arguments heard on point of summoning.
Following the law laid down in A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(2014) 11 SCC 790 and in view of complaint; documents produced with respect to return of
cheque on dishonourment and service of legal demand notice; and verification in the form of
affidavit of evidence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against both accused
persons for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.
Let summons be issued to the accused persons on filing of PF/RC/AD/ speed
post, returnable on next date. Complainant is directed to file PF and take steps within one month
including providing copy(ies) of complaint and related documents. Ahlmad is directed to issue
the summons only after ensuring that the same has been done. The complainant is also apprised
of the fact that at the time of filing first PF, he is required to fill the mandatory NI Act Complaint
Meta Data. Service be also affected dasti as well as on the email, WhatsApp message(s) and text
message of accused person(s), as provided by the complainant and further subject to filing of
affidavit of service.
As per the guidelines laid down in the case titled as Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayed Babalal H, (2010) 5 SCC 663 and “Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 952”, the accused is at liberty to file an application for compounding of the
offence on the first or second date of hearing itself without imposition of cost. However, failure
to do the same and seeking compounding at a later stage will entail additional cost. Same be
mentioned on the summons.
Put up for appearance of accused persons, grant of bail and framing of notice on
16.01.2027.
(Navdeep Gupta)
JMFC/NI Act-02
Central/THC/Delhi, Delhi
04.08.2026
-- 1 of 1 --