Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Court of Sh. Divyam Lila, Ld. MM (MCD), Date of Order 25.03.2026
East, KKD, Delhi
8CC NI ACT/398/2024 SBL Pvt Ltd Vs. Shraddha Homeo Pharmacy (Preet Vihar)
Present: Sh. Ravi Dev Sharma, Ld. counsel for the complainant (through VC).
Ms. Vishnu Priya, Ld. counsel for the accused (through VC).
Stage: Consideration on application under Section 145(2) of NI Act, furnishing of surety bonds, and payment
of costs.
PROCEEDINGS & ORDER:
1. Non-Compliance Regarding Surety and Costs:
Previous costs imposed upon the accused remain unpaid. Furthermore, the surety bonds have not been filed by
the accused, nor has any proof of solvency of the surety been submitted on record.
The accused is strictly directed to appear physically on the next date of hearing (NDOH) along with the sound
surety and the complete surety bonds. The accused is put on notice that failing compliance on the NDOH, the
bail granted to the accused will be cancelled and the personal bail bonds shall be forfeited without further
warning.
2. Default in Filing Application u/s 145(2) NI Act & Evaluation of Defense:
Despite specific directions, no application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been
filed on behalf of the accused today.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Agarwal Vs. State & Anr. (2010 SCC OnLine Del 2501) has
categorically established that the Magistrate is not mandated to recall the complainant for cross-examination
merely for the asking, and the accused must disclose a valid defense warranting such cross-examination
through a proper application.
It is noted from the record that the sole defense raised by the accused is that the payment has already been
made. This specific plea of payment is an affirmative fact that can be independently established and proved by
the accused by leading Defence Evidence (DE). It does not inherently necessitate the recalling of the
complainant for cross-examination to disprove the complainant's case, especially in the total absence of a
proper application detailing the grounds for the same.
3. Closure of Right and Complainant's Evidence (CE):
In view of the deliberate failure to file the application under Section 145(2) NI Act despite opportunity, and
noting that the disclosed defense does not legally warrant recalling the complainant for cross-examination, the
right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant is hereby closed.
The pre-summoning evidence of the complainant is read in evidence. Accordingly, Complainant's Evidence
(CE) stands closed.
4. Next Stage: The matter is now fixed for the recording of the Statement of the Accused (SA) under Section
351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and for Defence Evidence (DE). Let the matter be
listed for SA and DE on 12.06.2026.
Divyam Lila
Scan the QR Code for downloading Presiding Officer
the summons, notices and warrants. All ordersheets are digitally signed and uploaded
-- 1 of 1 --