Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 17CC NI ACT/9018/2024
CNR NO:-DLCT020277622024
Devender Kumar Kashyap Vs. Seema Chawla
23.03.2026
File is taken up today as 21.03.2026 was holiday on account of Id-
ul-Fitr.
Present : None for the complainant.
Sh.Puru Arora, Ld. Counsel for the proposed accused.
Proposed accused in person.
Ld. Counsel for the proposed accused submits that he
has no objection in summoning of present case.
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.
-- 1 of 3 --
Page-2
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 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.
Since, the accused has entered appearance, summons
are dispensed with.
Since the offence is bailable, accused is admitted to bail
subject to furnishing of bail bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and one
surety in the like amount. Time sought for filing surety bonds. Time
granted till NDOH.
Notice u/s 251 Cr. P.C. framed against the accused for
the offence u/s 138 NI Act to which he has pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
Admission/ denial of documents done u/s 294 Cr.
P.C.In view of the admission of the accused of his signature on the
cheque, bank return memo and the address appearing on the legal
demand notice, witnesses cited in list of witnesses by complainant at
serial no. 2 stand dropped from said list.
-- 2 of 3 --
Page-3
Considering the defense taken by accused as triable
issues have been raised and it is essential that the version of
complainant is subjected to the rigorous of the cross-examination
for eliciting the truth, therefore, accused is granted opportunity to
cross-examine the complainant u/s 145(2) NI Act.
Further, this Court does not deem it desirable /
appropriate to try the case summarily since sentence for
imprisonment exceeding one year may have to be passed if trial
results in conviction.
Hence, this case would be tried as summons trial case.
List the matter for CE on 18.07.2026.
(Ravisha Sidana)
JMFC, NI Act-06,
Central District, THC
23.03.2026
-- 3 of 3 --