Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 45 CC NI ACT / 476/2025
RAJESH ARORA Vs. M/S EKNOOR SALES CORPN
06.06.2025
Present : Mr. Anmol, Ld. counsel for the complainant through VC.
None for proposed accused.
On the last date of hearing proposed accused was appeared
alongwith his counsel.
Today, none appeared on behalf of the proposed accused.
The court is not inclined to give another opportunity to the
accused to make his objections.
The matter is listed today for fresh 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
-- 1 of 4 --
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 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.
Perusal of record shows that there is nothing on record to show
that accused no.3 is a partner of accused no.1. Perusal of the complaint and the
affidavit also shows that necessary averment against accused no.3 as to how
he was actively involved in the transaction or the averments to the effect that
he is responsible for the day to day affairs of the partnership firm are absent.
5. Let accused no.1 and 2 i.e. M/S Eknoor Sales Corporation
and Mr. Aryan Sharma be summoned through approved registered courier,
speed post and e-mail for 23.09.2025. 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
-- 2 of 4 --
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/06.06.2025
At 02:00 PM
Present: Accused through VC.
-- 3 of 4 --
Since the accused has appeared before the court, formal
requiurement of issuance of summons is hereby dispensed with.
Accused is directed to appear physically on the NDOH.
Put up on the date fixed i.e. 23.09.2025.
(Pranjal Gangwar)
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) -03
Central/Delhi/06.06.2025
-- 4 of 4 --