Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC NI ACT / 5553/2025
LAXMI PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD Vs. RAVINDER RAWAT
25.08.2025
Lawyers are abstaining from work.
Present : Ld. Proxy counsel for complainant through VC.
Matter is at the stage of consideration.
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 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 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
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
-- 1 of 2 --
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
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Let accused Ravinder Rawat, (Proprietor of M/s Bharat
Depot) be summoned through approved registered courier, speed post and e-
mail for 09.01.2026. 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/25.08.2025
-- 2 of 2 --