Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02, KKD COURTS, DELHI
Cr Rev 353/2025
CNR NO. DLET01 006480 2025
Ainan Ahmad ….. Appellant
Versus.
Ajay Kumar Singh …..Respondent
14.08.2026
Pr.: Sh. Nitesh Saini, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
Sh. Anil Kumar Juneja, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
1. Reply to the condonation application has been filed.
2. Arguments heard.
3. I have perused the revision and reason for delay.
4. This is a revision petition and though there is some delay in
filing the revision but if Ld. Magisterial Court has committed any
mistake, such mistake can be corrected even
suo moto. The case
pertains to bouncing of cheque which is more in the realm of civil
dispute than a serious criminal problem for society at large. I am
therefore not inclined to deny the accused a proper opportunity for
getting a decision of revision on merits. The delay is condoned.
5. The revision petition is admitted herein.
6. Ld. counsel for respondent submits that the reply contains
detailed factual position and contentions touching upon the merits also
Cr Rev 353/2025
Ainan Ahmad Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
Page 1 / 4
-- 1 of 4 --
and that the grounds raised in the revision are matter of trial and
should be dealt with by the Ld. Magistrate instead of this court.
7. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued that on the same cheque,
the complainant has initiated an FIR in UP and therefore, he could not
have filed the instant complaint case for cheque bounce. He has
argued that the complainant has suppressed a material fact before the
Ld. Magistrate and therefore, he was not entitled to obtain any relief.
He has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha
Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungh 2005 INSC 399.
8. I have perused the record and considered the submissions.
9. The complainant presented written complaint before the
Magistrate claiming that due to some property transactions between
them the accused became friendly and later on availed a loan of
Rs.79,75,500/- and in discharge of the liability issued a cheque
bearing No. 000013 which was later on dishonoured. The complainant
had issued a legal notice to the accused to which the accused had sent
a reply.
10. The Ld. Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed,
issued a pre-cognizance notice vide order dated 06.05.2025. It is this
order which has been challenged by this instant revision petition. I am
of the considered view that such an order cannot be challenged at all.
A pre-cognizance notice is given for the benefit of accused so that he
can advance arguments before the Ld. Magistrate to avoid any
cognizance. Accused himself cannot challenge such order through
which he has been given certain benefits.
11. Be that as it may, the prayer in the revision petition is to the
effect that the entire criminal proceeding pending before the Ld. Trial
court should be quashed. I am of the opinion that a Sessions Court
Cr Rev 353/2025
Ainan Ahmad Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
Page 2 / 4
-- 2 of 4 --
cannot exercise power of quashing of cases. It can simply check the
legality of a particular passed by a Ld. Magistrate.
12. Even if we go by merits of the claim projected by the
petitioner, no relief can be granted. The Ld. Magistrate later on
realized that in cheque bounce cases there was no necessity of issuing
pre-cognizance notice. He checked the record and found everything in
order to satisfy the prima facie requirement of the offence and
therefore, he directed issuance of summons.
13. For a cheque bounce case, the most basic averments to be made
in the complaint are about initial transaction, presentation of cheque,
dishonour of cheque and issuance of legal demand notice. Nothing
more is required to be provided in a written complaint. The
complainant has so provided the details before the Ld. Magistrate
alongwith the documents. As such, he cannot be treated as hiding
anything. He was not required to aver anything about any FIR being
lodged by him. The law does not contemplate that if parties are
entangled in some other litigation, the same must be mentioned in the
written complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 N.I.
Act. The judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for accused i.e.
Rekha Sharad Ushir (supra) cannot be of any help. In the said case,
the accused had issued reply to the legal notice and had sought loan
documents which were very relevant for showing liability but those
letters were suppressed by the complainant despite an examination on
oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. where specific question was asked.
The case before the Ld. Magistrate herein was entirely different. There
was no examination on oath under Section 200 CrP.C. as affidavit was
filed which was sufficient by virtue of Section 145 of NI Act
applicable to every stage of proceedings. The complainant has not
concealed the reply of accused and did file the same before the Ld.
Cr Rev 353/2025
Ainan Ahmad Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
Page 3 / 4
-- 3 of 4 --
Magistrate. He was not legally required to say that he has also filed an
FIR. The FIR for offence punishable under Section 318 BNS would of
course require an intention whereas the offence under Section 138 NI
Act pertains to strict liability without any
mensrea. There was nothing
before the Ld. Magistrate to further inquiring into the matter when the
documents were available with him. Whether or not there is any
liability cannot be tested at this stage. There is no help for the accused
from the judgment so relied upon.
14. The proceedings before the Ld. Magistrate has traveled to the
framing of notice and is pending for evidence. A case under Section
138 NI Act cannot be quashed on assumption or presumption.
15. However, the Ld. Magistrate needs to remind himself that a
huge cash transaction should always be reported to Income Tax
Department.
16. The revision petition does not has any merit and is therefore,
dismissed.
17. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
18. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(Rakesh Kumar Singh)
Additional Sessions Judge-02,
East, KKD Courts, Delhi
14.08.2026
Cr Rev 353/2025
Ainan Ahmad Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh
Page 4 / 4
-- 4 of 4 --