Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 56CC NI ACT/9020/2026
CNR NO.:-DLCT020271072026
SHRI AKSHAY GOEL VS. ANUJ MINDA
01.08.2026
Present : Sh.Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the complainant
(through VC).
In compliance of previous order, Share Purchase order
dated 12.02.2025 filed. Taken on record.
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.
On consideration of the complaint, annexed documents and
the verification affidavit of the complainant, this Court is of the opinion
that prima facie there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
accused mentioned, I hereby take cognizance of the offence under
-- 1 of 2 --
Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. There is no requirement
for examination of the complainant or witnesses for purpose of issuance
of process in view of the above-mentioned directions of the Hon’ble
Apex Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In terms of inquiry conducted
under Section 202 CrPC, all the statutory requirements have been
complied with. The complaint is filed within the period of limitation as
prescribed under Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act.
Let accused ANUJ MINDA be summoned on filing of pf,
rc/ speed post/ approved courier service/e-mail within 30 days for
NDOH.
Complainant is directed to place the tracking report of
summons sent through speed post on record on the next date. In the event
the house/office/premises is found to be locked/refusal to accept the
service/any other contingency the process be served through affixation in
terms of Section 65, CrPC.
As per the guidelines laid down as in the case titled as
Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, AIR 2010 (SC) 1907, Ahlmad
is directed to make a mention on the summons issued against the accused
(by adding separate sheet, if required) that “accused can make an
application for compounding of the offence at the first and second
hearing of the case and if such an application is made, compounding may
be allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused.”
Re-list the matter for 22.12.2026 for further proceedings.
(Ravisha Sidana)
JMFC, NI Act-06,
Central District, THC
01.08.2026
-- 2 of 2 --