Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 22
CC NI ACT 2417/2023
OM CONSULTANCY SERVICES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAKESH SHARMA
Vs. PRAGATI AL NATURAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.
(Mayur Vihar Circle)
03.03.2025
Matter taken up through VC on Cisco Webex.
Present: Sh. Atit Jain, Ld. Counsel for the complainant through VC.
This is a complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Entire record including the complaint
and the annexed documents perused thoroughly. It is alleged that accused has issued the
cheque in question bearing no. 000688 dated 26.01.2023 for Rs. 5,00,000/- to the
complainant in discharge of liability. On presentation, the same got dishonoured vide return
memo dated 25.04.2023 for the reason Funds Insufficient. Thereafter, demand notice dated
23.05.2023 was sent to the accused by the complainant. Despite service/deemed service of
said notice, accused has failed to make the payment within 15 days as per provisions of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
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. In view of the same, I take
cognizance of the said offence.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as A.C. Narayanan vs.
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
-- 1 of 2 --
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.”
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. 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 no. 1, 4 and 5 be summoned on filing of PF, RC/ Speed Post/
approved Courier service/E-mail within 07 days for NDOH. No case is made out against
accused no. 2 and 3.
Complainant is directed to place the tracking report of summons sent through
speed post on record 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 Vs.
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 “accused
can make an application for compounding of the offence at the first and 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.”
The Ahlmad is directed to mention the official email id and video conferencing
link of this Court on the summons.
Let the matter be put up for appearance of accused on 02.08.2025.
(Shiva Parashar)
JMFC (NI Act) Digital Court-01
East KKD Courts/03.03.2025
-- 2 of 2 --