Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 31 CC NI ACT 11147/2025
Rahul Gupta Vs. Prem Nath
04.02.2026
VC of this court is not working today.
Present: Ms. Deepika, Ld. Proxy Counsel for complainant with complainant.
Proposed accused in person.
Matter is at the stage of consideration.
However, in terms of the guidelines passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in case titled as
Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., 2025 (SC) 952,
decided on 25.09.2025, there is no requirement to issue notice u/s 223 BNSS in
complaint case u/s 138 NI Act. Accordingly, the stage of notice u/s 223 BNSS is
dispensed with.
Copy of complaint has been supplied to the accused in the court.
The matter is at the stage of consideration.
File perused. All the statutory requirements under NI Act are complied
with. After perusal of the entire record, this court is of the considered opinion that
prima facie case punishable u/s 138 of NI Act is made out against the accused.
Cognizance of the same is taken.
Perusal of case file reveals that cheque in question was presented for
encashment and was returned dishonored vide return memo. Accused has failed to
make payment within the legally prescribed period despite the service of legal
demand notice upon him. The complaint is within the territorial jurisdiction of this
court and is within limitation. Enquiry u/s 225 BNSS conducted by scrutinizing
documents.
Arguments on summoning heard. Following the law laid down in A.C.
Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2024) 11 SCC 790, complaint,
evidence by way of affidavit and documents considered. In view of complaint,
documents produced and verification in the form of affidavit there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding further against the accused for offence punishable u/s 138 NI
Act.
Let accused side be summoned. Since accused has appeared today.
Issuance of formal summons is dispensed with.
At this stage, court has assisted the accused in framing of notice.
Heard on notice. On a perusal of the complaint and supporting
documents, this court is of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds to frame
notice against the accused and proceed to trial. The factum of issuance & dishonour
of cheque in question, the service of legal demand notice, failure of payment despite
-- 1 of 2 --
demand, liability and cumulative effect thereof culminating into an offence U/s 138
NI Act have been explained to the accused in vernacular. The attention of the
accused has been drawn to the evidence appearing against him and to each
document relied upon by the complainant.
The plea of defence of accused recorded separately.
At this stage, oral prayer for cross examination of complainant witness
made by the accused. Keeping in mind the legislative intent as incorporated in
Section 145(2) NI Act and the defence disclosed by the accused in his plea of
defence, the court is of the view that accused is having sufficient ground to cross
examine the complainant. Accordingly, oral prayer for cross examination of
complainant witness of the accused is hereby allowed.
At this stage, Admission/denial of documents by the accused under
Section 330 BNSS recoded separately. On the basis of the same, the four witnesses
cited at serial no. 2 to 5 in list of witnesses by complainant for same stands dropped
from said list.
This court further does not deem it appropriate/ desirable to try the
case summarily since sentence for imprisonment exceeding one year may have to be
passed, if the trial results in conviction, therefore, this case would be tried as
summons trial case.
Offence being bailable, accused is admitted to bail subject to
furnishing of personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like
amount. At this stage, the accused seeks some time to furnish bail bonds.
Accused submits that there is no possibility of settlement.
Put up for CE/furnishing of surety on 27.08.2026.
(URVI GUPTA)
J.M.F.C.-01(N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/04.02.2026
-- 2 of 2 --