Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 61 CC NI ACT / 13799/2024
M/s Jagdish And Sons India LLP Vs. M/s Manish Saree Emporium
(Kotwali)
26.09.2025
Present : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel for complainant alongwith the AR of complainant.
Perusal of the record shows that court notice was directed to be issued against the
proposed accused in terms of first proviso of Section 223 BNSS.
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.
Accordingly, requirement of hearing the proposed accused at pre-cognizance stage is
hereby dispensed with.
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.
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 223 BNSS, 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 Instruments Act, 1881. There is no requirement for examination of the
-- 1 of 2 --
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 Ashok Aggarwal (proprietor of M/S Manish Saree Emporium) be summoned
through approved registered courier, speed post and e-mail for 12.01.2026. 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 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, 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 at the first or 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.
(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 10% 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/26.09.2025
-- 2 of 2 --