Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 35 CC NI ACT / 11587/2024
KARTIK ADHIKARI Vs. RAJ NARAYAN PAL
06.08.2025
Present: Advocate complainant in person.
Accused in person.
Sh. A. K. Mahor, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Sh. Mohit Sehgal, bank officer, DBS Bank India, Ltd. (earlier Laxmi Vilas
Bank) Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (accused bank).
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Deputy manater, Yes Bank, Shastri Nagar, Delhi
(complainant bank).
Bank witnesses examined and discharged.
Diet money in sum of Rs. 500/- each has been paid to both bank witneses by
both parties.
On court query, the proposed accused has answered that said account is
operational.
Arguments on summoning heard on behalf of both parties.
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 202 Cr.PC conducted by scrutinizing documents.
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.
Since accused has entered apparance in person, issuance of formal summons is
hereby dispensed with.
It is submitted by accused side that they have received the copy of complaint
and annexures.
Heard on notice. On a perusal of the complaint and supporting documents, this
-- 1 of 2 --
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 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 294
Cr. P.C. recoded separately. On the basis of the same, the one witnesses cited at serial no. 3 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.
Sh. Mohit Sehgal, bank officer, DBS Bank India, Ltd. (earlier Laxmi Vilas
Bank) Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (accused bank), is directed to produce relevant record to show if the
account of accused is still operating, if he had applied for fresh cheque book and the account
statement of accused.
The complainant submits that he is willing to settle the matter. Parties are at
liberty to explore possibility of settlement out of court.
Be put up for CE/ further proceedings on 17.12.2025.
(URVI GUPTA)
J.M.F.C.-01(N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/06.08.2025
-- 2 of 2 --