Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 36 CC NI ACT / 61269/2025 Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt Ltd Vs.
Lakhani Footwear Pvt Ltd /0 (Connaught Place)
21.08.2026
Present: None for the complainant.
Vide this order, I shall decide the question of summoning in the
present case.
The present complaint U/s 138 N.I.Act has been filed qua the
dishonour of cheque bearing No. 979321 dated 20.04.2025 of Rs.
10,00,000/-, which was issued by the Accused no.1 company. Thereafter, the
cheque in question is stated to have been dishonoured on 27.06.2025.
Thereafter, the legal demand notice was issued to the Accused on
18.07.2025 through speed post. The tracking report in respect of the speed
post has not been filed and it is stated that on account of roll out of
advanced postal technology the tracking report could not be downloaded.
However, it is submitted that in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses
Act 1897, it is to be deemed that the service was effected / delivered in the
ordinary course of post.
It is submitted that the complaint case has been filed on
22.09.2025. Since the legal demand notice was sent by post on 18.07.2025,
it would be deemed to have been delivered within a period of 30 days, i.e by
18.08.2025 (reliance placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Subodh S Salaskar v. Jay Prakash M Shah & Anr (2008) 13 SCC 689) and
the period of filing of the present complaint would expire on 02.10.2025.
The present complaint has been filed on 22.09.2025, which is within the
period of limitation.
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
Entire record including the complaint and the annexed documents perused
thoroughly. It is alleged that the accused company had business dealings with
the complainant. The accused company has issued the cheque in question
bearing no. 979321 dated 20.04.2025 of amount Rs. 10,00,000/- to the
complainant in discharge of its liability. On presentation, the same got
dishonoured vide return memo dated 27.06.2025, due to reason funds
insufficient. Thereafter, demand notice dated 18.07.2025 was sent to the
accused by the complainant. Despite deemed service of said notice, accused
has failed to make the payment as per provisions of Negotiable Instruments
Act. Hence, the present complaint has been filed against a total of THREE
accused, as per the amended memo of parties.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as
A.C. Narayanan
vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 11 SCC 790 has held as under,
“29. From a conjoint reading of Sections 138, 142 and
145
of the N.I. Act as well as Section 200 of the Code, it is
clear that it is open to the Magistrate to issue process on the
basis of the contents of the complaint, documents
in support thereof and the affidavit submitted by the
complainant in support of the complaint….
…33.4 In the light of Section 145 of the NI Act, it is open
to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of
affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the
complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and the
Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the
complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
examine the complainant or his witness upon oath for
taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the
complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.”
Similar directions have been issued in
Indian Bank Association &
Ors. vs. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 590 and
Rajesh Agarwal vs.
State (2010) 171 DLT 51.
On consideration of the complaint, annexed documents and the verification
affidavit of the complainant, this Court is of the opinion that
prima facie there
are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused mentioned below
for the commission of offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881. There is no requirement for examination of the complainant or
witnesses for purpose of issuance of process in view of the above-mentioned
directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In terms
of inquiry conducted under Section 225 BNSS, all the statutory requirements
have been complied with. The complaint is filed within the period of
limitation as prescribed under Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
On consideration of the complaint, annexed documents, verification
affidavit of the complainant and the specific averments made against the
accused, this Court is of the opinion there are
prima facie grounds for
proceedings against accused no. 1, 2 and 3 only for the commission of
offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Accused no. 1 is the company and is
prima facie responsible, being the
drawer of cheque. Accused no.2 & 3 are the directors and incharge of day to
day affairs of the company and Accused no.2 is the authorised signatory of
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
the cheque in question and are therefore
prima facie liable. In terms of inquiry
conducted under Section 225 BNSS, all the statutory requirements have been
complied with. The complaint is filed within the period of limitation.
Let accused no. 1, 2 & 3 be summoned on filing of PF, RC/ Speed Post/
approved Courier service/ E-mail within 14 days for 13.01.2027.
Complainant is directed to place the tracking report of summons sent
through speed post on record on the next date. 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 in terms of Section
65, CrPC.
As per the guidelines laid down in
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.”
(Twinkle Chawla)
JMFC-04/PHC/ND
21.08.2026
-- 4 of 4 --