Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 46 CC NI ACT / 33942/2024 Hero Fincorp Ltd Vs. MD QAMRE ALAM
52 CC NI ACT / 33950/2024 Hero Fincorp Ltd Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH
23.07.2026
This court has a pendency of more than 36000 cases. Shorter dates are not given on account of heavy
pendency.
Present: Sh. Rohan Talwar, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of the complainant. Taken on record.
Matter is fixed for report on notice u/sec 223 BNSS.
It is pertinent to note that vide judgment dated 25.09.2025 in the matter of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore
S. Borcar, Crl. Appeal No.1755 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dispensed with the
requirement of issuance of notice u/sec 223 BNSS in matters pertaining to Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Arguments on summoning heard.
I have gone through the entire record including the complaint and the documents. It
is alleged that accused has executed the ECS Mandate in question in favour of the complainant to
discharge his liability. On its presentation the same was dishonored. Therefore, 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 Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint is prima
facie filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
Accordingly, this court takes cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec.25 of
Payment and Settlement Act, read with Section 138 of NI Act.
Following the law laid down in A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 11
SCC 790, complaint, affidavit of evidence and other annexed documents considered. Accordingly,
there is no need to examine the complainant for the purpose of issuance of process.
Inquiry U/Sec.202 Cr.P.C. is conducted vide examination of documents and this
court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding to issue summons against the
accused.
Hence, let the accused be summoned through all permissible modes for offence u/s
25 of Payment and Settlement Act, 2007 on filing of PF/RC. 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 10 months.
Let summons be also issued upon accused through whatsapp and email as well and
the affidavit of service be filed by the complainant before the NDOH.
Complainant is directed to file the internet tracking report qua the said summons on
or before the NDOH. Complainant is further directed to supply copy of complete set of documents
filed in the court including the evidence affidavit of the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the
complainant is also directed to file the duly filled mandatory NI Act complaint Meta Data Form
before filing first PF.
Further, 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.”
Put up for appearance of accused/framing of notice on 21.04.2028.
(Akanksha Singh)
JMFC(NIAct)/02/PHC
NDD-ND-23.07.2026
-- 1 of 1 --