Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 29 CC NI ACT 13305/2025
Indostar Capital Finance Limited Vs. Ilavarasan V
16.09.2026
Today, undersigned is also working as Duty JMFC.
Today, undersigned is also working as Link JMFC to Ld. JMFC NI-03.
Present: Ms. Nandini Aggarwal and Sh. Siddharth Maheshwari, Ld. Counsels
for complainant.
None for proposed accused no. 1
Matter is at the stage of consideration.
Original postal receipts and tracking report on notice of condonation of
delay issued to proposed accused no. 1 filed on behalf of complainant with the
report ‘delivered’ on one of the address. Taken on record.
None has appeared on behalf of accused despite service of notice of
condonation of delay.
Considering the service of notice of condonation on the proposed
accused, it is assumed that the proposed accused does not wish to argue on the point
of condonation. Hence, his right to argue on the point of condonation stands closed.
Submissions on behalf of complainant side has been heard.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that certain documents of the file
were placed due to which complaint could not be filed within time.
Submissions heard. Filing history placed on record. Perusal of the
record shows that the delay in filing of present case.
Though, delay in filing the complaint is apparent, but in the opinion of
this Court, no genuine claim of any side should fail due to mere technical reason and
since reasonable explanation has been furnished for delay in filing of complaint, so
same is hereby condoned in the interest of justice.
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 225 BNSS conducted by scrutinizing
documents.
Arguments on summoning heard. Following the law laid down in A.C.
Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2024) 11 SCC 790, complaint,
-- 1 of 2 --
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.
Perusal shows that cheque in question is signed by one of the accused.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that signatory and drawer of the cheque in
question is only of proposed accused no. 1. Hence, no grounds are forthcoming to
issue summons qua proposed accused no. 2.
Issue summons to the accused no. 1 Ilavarasan V only, on filing of PF
within three months, through all modes.
Complainant is directed to supply the soft copy of complaint and
documents to the accused well in time.
In case of online service, complainant is directed to file requisite
affidavit with contact details of the accused and certificate U/s 63 BSA to show due
service through online mode. Complainant is directed to file proof of service.
Summons should carry an endorsement that accused is at liberty to
settle the matter and pay the amount to the complainant by reaching out the
complainant on the no. 8882531888, in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in case titled as
Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.,
2025 (SC)
.
Put up for appearance of accused/ framing of notice/ furnishing of
surety/ further proceedings on 09.07.2027.
(URVI GUPTA)
J.M.F.C.-01(N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/16.09.2026
-- 2 of 2 --