Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 28 CC NI ACT / 946/2025
Sarbhdeep Singh Vs. Sat Pal /0 (Krishna Nagar)
18.02.2026
Present: Complainant in person alongwith Ld. counsel.
Ld. counsel for the accused.
Matter is listed for consideration.
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 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.
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.
Since the accused has already entered appearance, issuance of summons is
dispensed with.
Put up for appearance of accused, grant of bail and framing of notice on
29.07.2026.
(Ankit Solanki)
JMFC (NI Act), East/ KKD,Delhi/18.02.2026
-- 1 of 1 --