Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 28 CC NI ACT / 10659/2025 M/S SANGUINE FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY Vs. M/S
VASU DISTRIBUTORS AND ANR /0 (Roop Nagar)
29 CC NI ACT / 10663/2025 M/S SANGUINE FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY Vs. M/S
VASU ASSOCIATES AND ANR /0 (Roop Nagar)
11.04.2026
Matter is taken up today in compliance of order bearing No. 64/G-4, Genl.-
I/DHC dated 27.02.2026 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
Present: Ms Sonali & Mr Sumit Kumar, Ld counsel for the complainant.
Matter is at the stage of consideration.
Affidavit in terms of last order has been filed.
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 for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.
Let summons be issued to the accused 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, grant of bail and framing of notice on
31.08.2026.
(Navdeep Gupta)
JMFC (NI Act-02)/Central
THC/Delhi/11.04.2026
-- 1 of 1 --