Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 39
CC NI ACT/14556/2024
CNR NO.:-DLCT021056482024
M/S PRAVESH PAPER PRIVATE LIMITED
Vs.
M/S KOPYBRIGHT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
09.07.2025
Present : Sh. Ashif, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the complainant.
Court notice issued to the proposed accused has been
received back as duly served thorugh whatsaap on the father of
proposed accused. Screenshot annexed. Taken on record.
Since none has appeared on behalf of proposed
accused, therefore, the effective compliance of proviso of Section
223 BNSS have been duly made.
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 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
-- 1 of 3 --
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.1 company and accused no.2 Vedant
Behany 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
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
-- 2 of 3 --
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.”
Complainant is directed to serve the accused through all
modes.
Re-list the matter for 06.10.2025 for further
proceedings.
(RAVISHA SIDANA)
JMFC, NI Act-06, Central District, THC/09.07.2025
-- 3 of 3 --