Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 29 CC NI ACT / 12534/2025
IVOOMI INNOVATION PVT LTD Vs. MR BASANT KUMAR KHARE PROPRIETOR OF SAI
INFOTECH
11.06.2026
Present: 	Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
The clarification has been provided by Ld. Counsel for complainant as sought
in order dated 09.01.2026. It is stated that due to an inadvertence, the documents of two cases
were mixed in the physical filing and they have been corrected by the office attached to this
court. It is submitted that the defect does not appear to exist now as the legal demand notice of
some other case was wrongly annexed in the present file, though it was correctly filed on the
e-portal.
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. Prima facie the complaint is within limitation. 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
Steno Purshotam Kumar, Emp. Code 99617087
-- 1 of 2 --
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, 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.
Accordingly, issue summons to accused 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.
Put up for appearance of accused/ furnishing of bail bonds/ framing of notice on
23.09.2026.
(Danveer)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04, NI Act
11.06.2026
Steno Purshotam Kumar, Emp. Code 99617087
-- 2 of 2 --