Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 85 CC NI ACT / 3176/2025 MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA Vs.
PRIYAM CHOUDHARY
24.07.2025
There is pendency of more than 17,000 cases in the present court,
therefore, it is not possible to give shorter date in the cases and
the present court is working with only one Stenographer.
Today, the undersigned is looking after the work of link JMFC.
Present : Sh. Rohit Khanna, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Matter is listed for appearance of proposed accused
in terms of proviso section 223 (1) of BNSS.
It appears that the proposed accused has been served
by way of ordinary process.
Since the proposed accused has failed to enter
appearance and put forth submissions on the point as to why
cognizance should not be taken against him in the instant
prosecution at hand, this court shall proceed with issuance of
summons.
It is clarified that one effective opportunity has
already been given to the proposed accused and the requirement
of serving the proposed accused with a notice prior to taking
cognizance u/s 138 NI Act has been successfully complied with.
A perusal of the file reveals that cheque bearing no.
000040 and 000041 were issued on 27.11.2024 and 10.12.24
respectively. The same were returned on 15.01.25 with the
comment ‘funds insufficient’. The legal demand notice was sent
on 22.01.25 (the day on which the return memo is received is
excluded for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation
for sending the legal demand notice within 30 days). The legal
demand notice was deemed to have been delivered on 27.01.25
as the item was returned with the comment ‘unclaimed’.
Henceforth, the legal demand notice is deemed to be served u/s
27 of the General Clauses Act read with section 114 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The present complaint came to be filed on
28.02.25. The same appears to be within the period of limitation.
Pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit and
other annexed documents perused. This court finds sufficient
material to proceed ahead with the case at hand. I take
cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act.
Following the law laid down in
A. C. Narayanan
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” (2014) 11 SCC 790, complaint,
pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit and other
documents considered. In view of the same, there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding further against accused person namely
-- 1 of 2 --
PRIYAM CHOUDHARY, for offence punishable under Section
138 N. I. Act.
(Anjali Singh)
JMFC (NI Act) – 03/PHC/ND/24.07.2025
At 12:35pm
At this stage, Sh. Kunal Narang, Ld. Counsel for the
accused has entered appearance through VC.
There is no need to issue summons in the matter as the
accused is already aware of the proceedings through ld. Counsel.
Vakalatnama has been e-filed. Let the same be
physically filed on the NDOH.
Since the offence is bailable, accused is admitted to
bail subject to furnishing of Bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.
20,000/-, with one surety of like amount.
Ld. Counsel for accused seeks time to furnish the bail
bonds. Heard and time granted.
Let a copy of the complaint be supplied to Ld. Counsel
for the accused on his mobile number 9650218004.
Be put up for furnishing of bail bonds and framing of
NOA on 17.10.25.
(Anjali Singh)
JMFC (NI Act) – 03/PHC/ND/24.07.2025
-- 2 of 2 --