Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 78 CC NI ACT / 17366/2025
CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. KRISHNA
TRADING COMPANY (Parliament Street)
04.10.2025
This court has a pendency of more than 17800 cases. Shorter dates are not given on account
of heavy pendency.
Present: Sh. Keshav Mann, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Rakesh Ranjan, Ld. Counsel for proposed accused.
Matter is fixed for arguments on summoning.
It is pertinent to note that vide judgment dated 25.09.2025 in the matter of
Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar, Crl. Appeal No.1755 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has dispensed with the requirement of issuance of notice u/sec 223 BNSS in matters
pertaining to Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
Accordingly, the proposed accused is not to be heard at this stage.
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. Complaint is prima facie filed within the prescribed period of
limitation.
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 Krishna Trading Company be summoned through its
proprietor Krishna Mohan Singh.
Since the ld. counsel for the accused is present before the Court today, the
requirement of formal summons is dispensed with.
Ld. Counsel for accused has been intimated of the proceedings of the Court.
Further, as per the guidelines laid down as in the case titled as “Damodar S.
Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H”, AIR2010(SC) 1907, accused is 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 appearance of accused/framing of notice on 20.12.2025.
(Akanksha Singh)
JMFC(NIAct)-02-PHC
NDD-ND-04.10.2025
-- 1 of 1 --