Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 31 CC NI ACT/11024/2026
DLCT020343672026
Suresh Goyal Vs. Manjeet Kaur
29.09.2026
Fresh matter received by way of assignment. It be
checked and registered.
Present : Mr. Kuldeep, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Matter is at the stage of consideration.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that Ms.
Manjeet Kaur is a proprietor of Rise Tailor and Drappers.
Heard.
Vide judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (criminal appeal no.
1755/2010) decided on 25.09.2025, it was held that there is no
requirement of sending a notice to the proposed accused at pre-
cognizance stage for offence U/s 138 NI Act.
Arguments Heard. Entire record including the complaint and the
annexed documents perused thoroughly. It is alleged that accused
has issued the cheque(s) in question to the complainant in
discharge of a legal liability. On presentation, the same got
dishonoured. Thereafter, demand notice was sent to the accused
by the complainant. Thereafter, the accused has failed to make
the payment within 15 days of receipt of the legal notice as per
provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thereafter,
the present complaint has been filed by the complainant.
-- 1 of 4 --
..2..
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported
as A.C. Narayanan v. 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. v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 590 and
Rajesh Agarwal v. State (2010) 171 DLT 51.
In light of the aforesaid decision, there is no need to examine the
complainant before issuing process to the accused. Accordingly,
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 below for the
commission of offence under Section 138, Negotiable
-- 2 of 4 --
..3..
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 225 BNSS, 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 Negotiable Instruments Act.
Let accused Manjeet Kaur (Proprietor of Rise Tailor
and Drappers) be summoned through approved registered
courier, speed post and e-mail for 14.04.2027. Complainant is
directed to file PF and take steps within 15 days. The Ahlmad is
directed to issue the summons only after ensuring that the same
has been done. In case, the complainant provides the E-mail
address and the Whatsapp No. of the accused, the Ahlmad is
directed to send the e-copy of summons to the Nazarat Branch
for service through E-mail and Whatsapp. Further, complainant is
directed to file an affidavit verifying the correctness of email ID
and the Whatsapp No. of the accused. Nazarat Branch is directed
to file report regarding service of summons through e-mail and
Whatsapp before the NDOH. If the complainant wishes to serve
the accused personally on his Whatsapp number and E-Mail ID,
he is directed to file an affidavit of compliance with respect to
service through e-mail as well as Whatsapp.
Complainant is further directed to place the tracking report of
summons sent through speed post on the next date. In the event
the house/office/premises is found to be locked/refusal
-- 3 of 4 --
..4..
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 v. Sayed Babalal H AIR 2010 (SC) 1907
and modified in Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S Borcar 2025
LiveLaw SC 952, Ahlmad is directed to make a mention on the
summons issued against the accused (by adding separate sheet, if
required) that :
(a) Accused can make an application for compounding of the
offence by paying the cheque amount at the first or second
hearing of the case or before recording of his evidence i.e.
defence evidence and if such an application is made,
compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any
costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding
as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made
before the court at a subsequent stage, compounding can be
allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required
to pay 5% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition
for compounding with the District Legal Services Authority.
(Pranjal Gangwar)
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-03
Central/Delhi/29.09.2026
-- 4 of 4 --