Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 91CC NI ACT/12762/2024
CNR NO.:-DLCT020440702024
SAVE HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED VS. NEERAJ ARORA
AND ANR
24.04.2026
Present : Sh.Shio Shankar Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the
complainant (through VC).
Sh.Sunil Kumar, AR for the complainant.
Fresh application for impleadment of proprietorship
firm filed alongwith fresh memo of parties and the documents
pertaining to the proposed firm, issued by Ministry of Commerce
and Industry for Import/ Export and the GST payment receipt,
pertaining to proposed accused. Taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that the proposed
firm is the drawer of the impugned cheque and inadvertently, the
name of the proposed firm was not stated in the memo of parties.
Considering the grounds stated in the application, the
stage of trial and the perusal of the documents annexed with the
application, as no prejudice would be caused to the proposed
accused, the application stands allowed. Amended memo of parties
taken on record.
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 no.2 be summoned on filing of pf, rc/
speed post/ approved courier service/e-mail within 30 days for
NDOH.
-- 2 of 3 --
Complainant is directed to place the tracking report of
summons sent through speed post on record 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 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 08.09.2026 for further
proceedings.
(Ravisha Sidana)
JMFC, NI Act-06,
Central District, THC
24.04.2026
-- 3 of 3 --