Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CC NI ACT 9226/2024
M/s Allied Tractors Vs. M/s Sarla Enterprises
22.11.2025
Present: Sh. Shubham Karnwal, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Son of proposed accused through VC.
Matter is at the stage of report on notice sent to the proposed accused.
However, the said exercise of pre-congnizance notice is not required as per the latest
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The instant complaint has been filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881.
Complaint, affidavit of evidence and other annexed documents perused.
Prima facie, there is sufficient material to proceed further with the matter. Arguments
on the point of summoning heard. Vide order dated 18.01.2025, the delay in filing the
present complaint was condoned. In view of the averments made in the complaint, this
court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Accordingly, this court
takes cognizance of the said offence u/s 138 N.I.Act, 1881.
Further, in the case of
A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014)
11 SCC 790, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that:
“
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 N.I 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 N.I 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 N.I. Act.”
Following the law laid down in
A.C. Narayanan (supra), complaint,
-- 1 of 2 --
affidavit of evidence and other annexed documents considered. Thus, there is no need to
examine the complainant’s evidence for the purpose of issuance of process. Complaint,
affidavit of evidence and other annexed documents perused. After perusal of the entire
record, the court is of the considered opinion that prima facie a case punishable u/s 138
N.I.Act, 1881 is made out against accused no. 1.
Accordingly, issue summons to accused no. 1 through post/approved
courier/other permissible (including dasti, if requested) modes on filing of PF & RC. PF
& RC to be filed within 7 days from today.
Ahlmad is directed to make the following endorsement on the summons
in terms of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sanjabij Tari Vs.
Kishore S. Borcar and Anr. (2025 INSC 1158) :
(a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before recording of their
evidence (Defence Evidence), the Trial Court may allow the compounding
of the offence without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused.
(b) If the accused makes payment of the cheque amount post the recording
of Defence Evidence, but prior to the pronouncement of judgement, the
Court may allow compounding of the offence on payment of additional 5
per cent of the cheque amount with the Legal Services Authority or such
other authority as the Court deems fit...
Further, the process server is directed that in the event of non availability
of the accused or house/office/premises is found to be locked or accused refuses to
accept the service, process be served through affixation.
Since the offence is bailable, the accused is granted bail, subject to
furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
Time sought to furnish bail bonds. Time granted till NDOH.
Put up for appearance of accused/ furnishing of bail bonds/ framing of notice on
21.04.2026.
(Danveer)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04, NI Act
22.11.2025
-- 2 of 2 --