Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 111 CC NI ACT / 32030/2024 SYED SULTAN AHMED Vs. MUKESH
30.05.2026
Present: Mr. S.S Nizami, Ld. Counsel for the complainant through VC.
Complainant no. 2 in person.
Mr. Paras Bhardwaj & Mr. Divyanshu Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Accused in person.
Vakalatnama has been furnished on behalf of the accused. Taken on record.
Offence is bailable in nature, accused is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bail bond in the
sum of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith surety bond in the like amount.
Personal bail bonds furnished. Accepted.
Surety bond in the like amount to be furnished on NDOH.
Copy of the paper book already supplied to the accused, duly acknowledged by the accused.
The submissions have been heard on point of notice under section 251 Cr.PC. Record perused.
Accordingly, a notice for offence punishable under section 138 N.I. Act read with section 251 Cr.PC has been
framed, read over, explained and served upon the accused to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Aggarwal and another Vs. State,
171 (2010) DLT 51, the plea of defence of the accused has been recorded separately.
At this stage, admission/denial of documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. has been conducted.
Separate statement of accused qua the same has been recorded on even date. Consequent to the admission and
denial, the witness no. 2, 3 & 4 are dropped from the list of witnesses of the complaint.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has made an oral request that he be allowed to cross examine the
complainant in view of Section 145 (2) of N.I. Act. This request is not opposed by Ld. Counsel for the
complainant.
Considering the defence taken by the accused pursuant to framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C and
no objection of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, a plausible defence has been taken by the accused for which an
opportunity for cross examination of the complainant is fit to be given to the accused u/s 145(2) NI Act.
Accordingly, oral request for cross examination is allowed.
This Court further does not deem it appropriate/desirable to try the case summarily since
sentence for imprisonment exceeding one year may have to be passed, if the trial results in conviction, therefore,
this case would be tried as summons trial case.
Put up for cross-examination of the complainant on 01.10.2026.
(Vanshika Mehta)
JMFC-04(NI Act)/PHC/NDD
30.05.2026.
-- 1 of 1 --