Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 68 CC NI ACT / 10129/2025 M/s Sangat Printer Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Proficiency Learning Solution
Pvt Ltd Co /0 (Pahar Ganj)
24.12.2025
Present: AR of the complainant with LD counsel.
None for the proposed accused.
Matter is at the stage of consideration.
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.
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 accused persons
no, 1, 2 & 3 for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act and no ground is made out to
summon the accused no. 4 Kapil as he was neither the director of the accused company nor the
signatory to the cheque in question.
Let summons be issued to the accused No. 1, 2 & 3 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
25.04.2026.
(Navdeep Gupta)
JMFC (NI Act-02)/Central
THC/Delhi/24.12.2025
-- 1 of 1 --