Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 34 CC NI ACT / 1767/2026 JMD Maya Marketing Private Limited Vs.
Shaukin Saifi /0 (Preet Vihar)
06.05.2026
Fresh case received by way of e-filing. It be checked and registered.
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
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.
Let summons be issued to the proprietor of 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.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has entered an appearance and submitted
that they are willing to settle the matter with the complainant and pay the cheque
amount before NDOH.
Accordingly, list for appearance of accused and settlement, if any on
08.10.2026.
(Prithvi Joshi)
JMFC (NI Act), East/ KKD,Delhi/06.05.2026
-- 1 of 1 --