Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC No.21982/24
27.01.2025
Today, the undersigned is looking after the work of Ld. Link
JMFC.
Present : AR with Proxy Counsel Sh. Rajat Ranjan Pandey.
Complete case file alongwith original documents as
well as PSE affidavit of the complainant has been filed.
In light of the decision of full bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India cited as
“A. C. Narayanan v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr.” (2014) 11 SCC 790, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no need to examine the
complainant at this pre-summoning stage for the purpose of
issuance of process against the accused. No other witness is
sought to be examined on behalf of the complainant at this stage.
Accordingly, PSE stands closed.
Arguments on summoning heard.
I have gone through the entire record including the
complaint and the documents. It is alleged that the accused has
executed the ECS Mandate in question in favour of the
complainant to discharge his liability. Upon its presentation, the
same was dishonored. Therefore, a legal 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 the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Complaint is filed within the prescribed period of
limitation. In my considered opinion, prima facie there is
sufficient material available on record to summon the accused.
Hence, accused Kasim Rafiq (sole proprietor of
accused no.1 Bismi Chicken Centre) be summoned for offence
u/s 25 of Payment and Settlement Act, 2007 on filing of PF/RC.
-- 1 of 2 --
In the event the house/office/premises is found to be
locked/refusal to accept the service/any other contingency the
process be served through affixation. PF be filed within 20 days
from today.
Put up for appearance of the accused/ report of
summons on 12.08.2025.
As per the guidelines laid down as in the case titled
as “Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H”, AIR2010(SC)
1907, Ahlmad is directed to make a mention on the summons
issued against the accused (by adding separate sheet, if required)
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.”
(Poonam Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) – 01
PHC/New Delhi/27.01.2025
-- 2 of 2 --