Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 8 CC NI ACT / 31172/2025 Gaurav Gambhir Vs. Rajiv Sharma
08.08.2026
There is pendency of more than 41,000 cases in the present court, therefore, it is not
possible to give shorter date in the cases.
Present : Sh. Pranav Gambhir, Ld. Counsel for complainant through
VC.
Matter is listed for report on notice to reply on application
for condonation of delay.
Service report filed.
The accused is deemed to have been served on 24.06.26 as
the item was returned with the comment ‘unclaimed’. Same is deemed
service in law.
A perusal of the file reveals that the legal demand notice
was delivered on 20.03.25 and on 17.03.25 by way of whatsapp and e-
mail. For the purposes of calculating the period of limitation, the same
will begin from the time when the legal demand notice was sent prior in
time i.e. 17.03.25. The accused is given 15 days in law to pay the amount
or else the complainant can file the complaint. The period of fifteen days
expired on 01.04.25. The cause of action began on 2.4.25, i.e. the 16th
day of non payment. The day on which the cause of action arises is also
excluded for calculating the period of limitation. The complaint could
have been filed from 03.4.25 till 02.5.25 i.e. within a month. The present
complaint came to be e-filed in PHC on 03.6.25. There appears to be a
delay of 32 days in filing the present complaint.
In terms of submissions made orally and in the application,
it appears that the complainant had initiated the filing within time i.e. on
30.04.25. However, on account of an inadvertence that matter was filed
in an incorrect jurisdiction. The same later came to be withdrawn on
17.05.25 in the court of Ld.JMFC-01 NI Act (Digital Court South East
Saket) and refiling was done at the earliest. The delay at the instance of
complainant was neither intentional nor deliberate. In terms of settled
law, if “sufficient cause” is made out for delay in filing the present
complaint, the court has discretionary power to consider the prayer made.
Since the original complaint came to be filed within the
time prescribed by law and it is only on account of an inadvertence that
the matter came to be filed in another jurisdiction, sufficient cause has
been made out at this stage by the complainant. Furthermore, the cause
of substantial justice cannot be thwarted for technical considerations.
Accordingly, application for condonation of delay moved by the
complainant is allowed.
A perusal of the file reveals that cheque bearing no.
000087 was issued on 17.02.25. The same was returned on 17.2.25 with
the comment ‘debit not allowed’. The legal demand notice was sent on
17.3.25 by way of whatsapp, email and speed post (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).
-- 1 of 2 --
The legal demand notice was delivered on 17.03.25 itself by way of
whatapp and email. Period of delay already condoned.
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 Rajiv Sharma, for offence punishable under Section 138 N. I.
Act. I hereby summon the said accused person.
Ahlmad is hereby directed to issue summons against the
accused persons o
n filing of P.F./R.C./Approved Courier as well as
through e mail ID and whatsapp number of accused persons on
furnishing of the correct e mail ID and whatsapp Number of the accused
persons by the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to get the
summons served through all permissible modes including electronic and
dasti.
The process server is directed to serve the summons by
way of affixation in terms of section 65 CrPC (section 67 of BNSS,
2023), if premises found closed or same could not be served personally
or on any adult male member.
Further, the complainant is to file an affidavit to the effect
that the service of summons has been effected via e mail and/or whatsapp
number of the accused. The affidavit is to be annexed along with
certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act (section 63 of BSA, 2023). A
digital copy of screenshot of such service be necessarily attached with a
report on summons.
As per the guidelines laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayyed Baba Lal H1, Ahlmad is directed to make a mention on the
summons issued against the accused 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 cost on the accused.”
The Ahlmad is directed to mention the official email Id and
video conferencing link of this Court on the summons. Complainant is
directed to file PF and take steps within 12 weeks including providing
copy(ies) of complaint. Matter be fixed for appearance of accused and
framing of notice on 13.01.27.
(Anjali Singh)
JMFC (NI Act) – 03/PHC/ND/08.08.2026
1 (2010) 5 SCC 663
-- 2 of 2 --