Full Order Text
Order 1 · 07 May 2026 · CNR DLNT020110512026
Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Pdf Text: CC NI ACT 964/2026 RAHUL AGGARWAL AND ANR. VS. NARENDER SINGH RAWAT AND ANR. ALIPUR 07.05.2026 Fresh complaint u/s 138 NI Act received. It be checked and registered. Present: Sh. Shashank Tripathi, Sh. Ragib Gayyer and Ms. Sonali Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the complainant. I take cognizance of offence punishable U/s 138 N I Act. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A.C Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Pre-summoning evidence is dispensed as the evidence by way of affidavit alongwith the relevant documents make out the offence. Arguments on summoning heard. I have perused the complaint, evidence affidavit and the documents on record. The cheque in question was issued in favour of the complainant by the accused towards discharge of his liability. The said cheque was dishonoured/returned unpaid on presentation. Legal Notice was issued and served upon the accused in the ordinary course. The grievance of the complainant is that the accused has not made the payment against the aforesaid cheque within the stipulated period despite service of legal notice. There are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, therefore, let the accused no.1 and 2 be summoned on filing of PF through RC/Speed Post. Steps be taken within 07 days from today. Put up for appearance of accused no.1 and 2 on 05.10.2026. Complainant is directed to place the tracking report of summons sent through speed post on record on NDOH. 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. The complainant can provide email address of accused person(s), if any for service. Provided the complainant files an affidavit to the effect that e-mail on which the said summons is sent is of the accused person and further subject to filing of report of service. -- 1 of 2 -- 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.” (Aakash Sharma) JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi 07.05.2026 -- 2 of 2 --