Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 73
CC NI ACT/12034/2025
CNR NO.:-DLCT020363362025
SHRI RAM INDUSTRIES THROUGH AR KAILASH
VS.
PIYUSH VERMA
16.10.2025
Fresh complaint case received by way of assignment. It be checked
and registered.
Present : None for complainant.
Matter stands adjourned as none has appeared on behalf
of complainant to brief the matter.
Issue court notice to the complainant, through SHO
concerned, for next date of hearing.
Re-list the matter for 15.05.2026.
(Ravisha Sidana)
JMFC, NI Act-06,
Central District, THC/16.10.2025
At 2:29 p.m.
Present : Sh. Deepak Verma, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Court notice issued in the morning stands cancelled.
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
-- 1 of 3 --
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.
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 PIYUSH VERMA 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
-- 2 of 3 --
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.”
Re-list the matter for 15.05.2026 for further
proceedings.
(Ravisha Sidana)
JMFC, NI Act-06,
Central District, THC
16.10.2025
-- 3 of 3 --