Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 36 CC NI ACT / 25797/2024 NEETA VAMAN SHETTIGAR Vs.
DEEPAK UTTAM NAIK
28.07.2025
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.
Present : Sh. Sunny Pandey, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Siddesh, Ld. Counsel for the proposed accused.
Matter is listed for arguments at the stage of pre
cognizance.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of the proposed
accused. Same be taken on record.
Arguments heard.
Ld. Counsel for proposed accused submits that this
court does not have territorial jurisdiction as the complainant
maintains her bank account at Goa.
Perusal of the record prima facie reveals that the
cheque was dishonoured at UCO Bank, Patiala House Court,
Tilak Marg, New Delhi. In terms of settled law, this court will
have territorial jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint, if the
same is presented by the payee at the bank account maintained by
her.
A perusal of the file reveals that cheque bearing no.
0006132 was issued on 20.05.24. The same was returned on
21.05.24 with the comment ‘account closed’. The legal demand
notice was sent on 05.06.24 (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
14.06.24. The present complaint came to be filed on 16.7.2024.
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 DEEPAK
UTTAM NAIK, for offence punishable under Section 138 N. I.
Act.
-- 1 of 2 --
There is no need to issue summons in the matter as
the accused is already aware of the proceedings.
Since the offence is bailable, accused is admitted to
bail subject to furnishing of Bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- , with one surety of like amount.
Ld. Counsel for accused seeks time to furnish the
bail bonds. Heard and time granted.
Be put up for furnishing of bail bonds and framing
of NOA on 20.09.2025.
(Anjali Singh)
JMFC (NI Act) – 03/PHC/ND/28.07.2025
-- 2 of 2 --