Interim Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 8 CC NI ACT 4033/2023 SHASHI ASSAL Vs M/S SAMPATTI TRADING AND
DEVELOPERS
13.03.2026
This court has a pendency of more than 31500 cases. Shorter dates are not given on account
of heavy pendency.
Present: Sh. Ashutosh, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Neeraj Nagar, Ld. Proxy for LAC on behalf of proposed accused through
VC.
Proposed accused produced from JC.
Matter is fixed for orders on application for condonation of delay.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that there is a delay in the matter. The
legal demand notice was served to the accused on 13.01.2023 and thereafter, present case
was filed. However, it is submitted that the e-filing history of the present complaint cannot
be procured as the same was filed under the old e-filing system.
Ld. Counsel for complainant requests that the delay in the matter be condoned
since the delay was only on account of the continuous promises by the accused that the
payment shall be made in some time. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for complainant
that there are more than 50 complaints filed against the same accused and the accused has
continuously been making promises that the payment shall be made by him. It is further
submitted by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that it is only on account of continuous
buying of time by the accused that the present complaint has been filed belatedly.
Ld. LAC for the accused on the other hand opposes the said application
stating that no reasonable ground has been made out to condone the delay in the present
complaint. It is further submitted by Ld. LAC that the e-filing history has not been filed in
the matter and it is not clear as to what is the date of filing in the present matter. In any case
it is submitted that the date of registration of the present matter and that of first listing before
this Court is 18.03.2023 and as such there is significant delay in filing. It is submitted that it
is well accepted position of law that the delay in filing has to be explained qua each day on a
day to day basis and mere casual explanation as a whole will not serve the purpose. Ld.
LAC for the accused further submits that this is more relevant in the light of the fact that the
other cases qua the accused were filed within the limitation and there is no reason why those
complaints were filed within the statutory period but the complainant chose to wait to file
the complaint belatedly in this particular matter.
Heard. Perused.
Perusal of record shows that the legal notice was served in the instant matter
on 13.01.2023. Thereafter, 15 days would expire on 28.01.2023, which means limitation
period would expire on 01.03.2023. However, the first date of hearing before this Court i.e.
18.03.2023 would be taken as the date of filing in the absence of e-filing history. As such
the delay in the present matter is of 17 days.
It is correct that the delay has not been explained on a day to day basis.
However, the fact remains that the present complaint is one of a series of complaints filed
qua the same accused. It cannot be stated that the contention of the complainant that the
accused had been promising to make the payments is completely unwarranted and untrue.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
In view of the special circumstances in the present matter as well as in the
interest of justice, the application for condonation of delay stands allowed and the delay of
17 days stands condoned subject to cost of Rs.500/- to be deposited with DLSA, PHC NDD,
ND.
Arguments on summoning heard.
I have gone through the entire record including the complaint and the
documents. It is alleged that accused has executed the cheque in question in favour of the
complainant to discharge his liability. On its presentation the same was dishonored.
Therefore, demand notice was sent to the accused by the complainant. Despite service
/deemed service of said notice, accused has failed to make the payment as per provisions of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accordingly, this court takes cognizance of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Following the law laid down in A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra
(2014) 11 SCC 790, complaint, affidavit of evidence and other annexed documents
considered. Accordingly, there is no need to examine the complainant for the purpose of
issuance of process.
Inquiry U/Sec.202 Cr.P.C. is conducted vide examination of documents and
this court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding to issue summons
against the accused.
Hence, let the accused be summoned.
In view of the fact that the accused is present before this Court today, the
requirement of service of summons is dispensed with.
Further, as per the guidelines laid down as in the case titled as “Damodar S.
Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H”, AIR2010(SC) 1907, the accused has been informed that
“accused can make an application for compounding of the offence at the first and second
hearing of the case and if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the
Court without imposing any costs on the accused.”
Put up for framing of notice on 10.06.2026.
Accused is directed to be produced through VC on the NDOH.
(Akanksha Singh)
JMFC(NIAct)/02/PHC
NDD-ND-13.03.2026
-- 2 of 2 --