Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 42 Cc NI ACT 11706/2026 Jk Tyre and Industries ltd Vs. Gyarsi Devi Bansal /0 (I P Estate)
CNR No: DLCT020362342026
23.09.2026
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered as per
rules.
Present: AR of the complainant with Ld counsel Sh Varun Sikka.
This is a fresh case.
In the light of recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Sanjabij
Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952”, there shall be no requirement to
issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage.
Hence, appearance of proposed accused is hereby dispensed with.
Accordingly, arguments heard on point of summoning.
Following the law laid down in A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 790 and in view of complaint; documents produced with respect to return
of cheque on dishonourment and service of legal demand notice; and verification in the form of
affidavit of evidence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against accused Gyarsi
Devi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s Agarwal Goods Transport for offence punishable under Section
138 NI Act. However, no ground is made out to summon Lalit Agarwal as he is only the
authorized signatory for M/s Agarwal Goods Transport.
Let summons be issued to the accused Gyarsi Devi Bansal, Proprietor of M/s
Agarwal Goods Transport on filing of PF/RC/AD/ speed post, returnable on next date.
Complainant is directed to file PF and take steps within one month including providing
copy(ies) of complaint and related documents. Ahlmad is directed to issue the summons only
after ensuring that the same has been done. The complainant is also apprised of the fact that at
the time of filing first PF, he is required to fill the mandatory NI Act Complaint Meta Data.
Service be also affected dasti as well as on the email, WhatsApp message(s) and text message
of accused person(s), as provided by the complainant and further subject to filing of affidavit of
service.
As per the guidelines laid down in the case titled as Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayed Babalal H, (2010) 5 SCC 663 and “Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 952”, the accused is at liberty to file an application for compounding of the
offence on the first or second date of hearing itself without imposition of cost. However, failure
to do the same and seeking compounding at a later stage will entail additional cost. Same be
mentioned on the summons.
Put up for appearance of accused, grant of bail and framing of notice on
19.02.2027.
(Navdeep Gupta)
JMFC (NI Act-02)/Central/THC
Delhi/23.09.2026
-- 1 of 1 --