Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 94CC NI ACT/10883/2025
CNR NO.:-DLCT020298312025
MEENU MALIK
VS.
M/S METALLICZ ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
13.10.2025
Present : Ms. Reeva Chugh Arora, Ld. Counsel for the
complainant.
These are two connected matters.
MCA details of the proposed accused company
alongwith the directors filed. Taken on record. In addition, minutes
of the meeting of Board of Directors dated 20.05.2023 filed.
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 --
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.
Let accused no. 1, 2 and 3 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.”
-- 2 of 3 --
At request, re-list with the connected matter for
08.12.2025 for further proceedings.
(Ravisha Sidana)
JMFC, NI Act-06,
Central District, THC
13.10.2025
-- 3 of 3 --