Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC No.29234/2024State Bank Of India Vs. Savitri Devi
24.02.2025
Matter taken up through hybrid hearing.
Present : Sh. Himanshu Lilani, Ld. Counsel for the
complainant through VC.
Sh. Siddharath Singh, Ld.Counsel for the
complainant.
C/N issued to the proposed accused received back
with the report ‘left without instructions’.
It is submitted by Ld.Counsel for the complainant
that the proposed accused is deliberately avoiding service and
appearance before this Court.
This court is convinced that the proposed accused
person has failed to enter appearance and file her reply to the
present complaint despite due opportunity.
The present complaint is filed for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881. The Complaint is filed within limitation and is within the
territorial jurisdiction of this court. As per the complaint, a
cheque in question was issued in discharge of legally enforceable
outstanding debt or liability, cheque bearing no. 417975 dated
01.06.24 for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- drawn on PNB in favour
of the complainant. It is further alleged that on presentation of
the said cheque by the complainant, the same was returned
dishonoured with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’ vide Bank
Return Memo dated 05.06.24. That thereafter legal demand
notice dated 11.06.24 was also served and that the payment has
not been made within 15 days of the receipt of the legal demand
notice.
On the basis of the averments contained in the
complaint, an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act appears to have
been committed. In the considered opinion of this Court, prima
facie, there is sufficient material available on record to proceed
further. I hereby take cognizance of the offence u/S 138 NI Act.
In light of the decision of the full bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in
“A. C. Narayanan v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr.” (2014) 11 SCC 790, there is no requirement
to examine the complainant at the pre-summoning stage for the
purpose of issuance of process against the accused. Complaint,
evidence affidavit and annexed documents considered. No other
witness is sought to be examined on behalf of the complainant at
this stage. Relevant inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. conducted.
-- 1 of 2 --
In the considered opinion of this court, there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused in the present matter.
Accordingly, let summons be issued to the accused
Savitri Devi through all permissible modes on filing of PF within
20 days from today, returnable on 23.09.2025.
In case the house of the accused is found to be
locked, process server is directed to affix the summons on
conspicuous place.
As per the guidelines laid down as in the case titled
as “Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H”, AIR 2010(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.”
Summons be also sent through speed post and
internet generated tracking report of summons sent through speed
post be placed on record by NDOH.
Complainant is directed to file PF and to provide a
copy of complaint to the accused otherwise the complaint may
be dismissed U/s. 204(4) Cr.P.C.
(Poonam Singh)
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) – 01
PHC/New Delhi/24.02.2025
-- 2 of 2 --