Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 15 CC NI ACT / 830/2025
DALJEET SINGH Vs. REKHA BHALLA
03.06.2026
Present: Complainant in person alongwith Ld. counsel.
Accused in person alongwith Ld. counsel.
Fresh vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of accused. Taken on record.
As per the recent judgment of Sanjobij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. Crl. Appeal
no. 1755 of 2010 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it has been held that NI is a special
law of as per the definition of Section 5 BNSS and there is no need to issue summons to the
proposed accused at pre cognizance stage. There is a huge backlog of Section 138 cases and the
provision of 223 BNSS causes an additional delay in disposal of the same.
Keeping in view, the said judgment this court is of the humble opinion that notice
need not be issued to the proposed accused before taking cognizance.
Arguments heard on the point of summoning.
Record of the file perused. Following the law laid down in A. C. Narayanan Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 790 and in view of complaint; documents produced
with respect to return of cheque on dishonourment and service of legal demand notice; and
verification in the form of affidavit of evidence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further
against accused for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.
Let summons be issued to the accused on filing of PF/RC/AD/ speed post, returnable
on next date. Complainant is directed to file PF and take steps within one month including
providing copy(ies) of complaint and related documents. Ahlmad is directed to issue the summons
only after ensuring that the same has been done. The complainant is also apprised of the fact that at
the time of filing first PF, he is required to fill the mandatory NI Act Complaint Meta Data.
Service be also effected on the email, WhatsApp message(s) and text message of
accused person(s), as provided by the complainant and further subject to filing of report of service.
As per the guidelines laid down in the case titled as Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed
Babalal H, (2010) 5 SCC 663, the accused is at liberty to file an application for compounding of
the offence on the first or second date of hearing itself without imposition of cost. However, failure
to do the same and seeking compounding at a later stage will entail a cost of 10% of the cheque
amount. Same be mentioned on the summons.
The offense being a bailable one, the accused is admitted to bail subject to
furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety in the like amount. Personal bond
furnished and accepted till NDOH.
Notice of accusation has been served upon the accused, to which accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial. His plea of defence has also been recorded separately.
Admission & denial done. Therefore, witness no. 3, 4 & 5 stand dropped from the
list of witnesses on account of admission by accused.
Considering the detailed defence taken by the accused, plausible defence has been
raised for which an opportunity for cross-examination of the complainant is fit to be given to the
accused u/s 145(2) NI Act. The need for filing a formal application stands dispensed with.
In these circumstances, in view of the second proviso to section 143 (1) of the NI
Act, instead of being tried summarily, this case shall now be heard as a summons trial case.
To come up for furnishing of surety bond/CE on 03.10.2026.
(Prithvi Joshi)
JMFC (NI Act), East/ KKD,Delhi/03.06.2026
-- 1 of 1 --