Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 22 CC NI ACT / 1365/2025 Om Prakash Verma Vs. Rajni Devi /0 (Gandhi Nagar)
26.11.2025
Regular stenographer of this court is on leave.
Present: Counsel for the complainant through VC.
Complainant in person.
The matter was listed for 25.11.2025. However, the same has been declared
a holiday by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
Accordingly, the matter is taken up today.
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 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.
Contd...2/-
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
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.
Put up for appearance of accused, grant of bail and framing of notice on
18.03.2026.
(Ankit Solanki)
JMFC (NI Act), East/ KKD,Delhi/26.11.2025
-- 2 of 2 --