Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 65 CC NI ACT / 1038/2026 MOHMAD IZHAR KHAN Vs. PARDEEP / ()
28.09.2026
Present: Ld. Proxy Counsel for complainant with complainant.
1. In the matter of “
A C Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” (2014) 11
Supreme Court Cases 790, Full Bench of The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“29. From a conjoint regarding reading of sections 138, 142 and 145 of the NI 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.
Once the complainant files an affidavit in support of the complaint before issuance
of the process under section 200 of the Code, it is thereafter open to the Magistrate,
if he thinks fit, to call upon the complainant to remain present and to examine him
as to the facts contained in the affidavit submitted by the complainant in support of
his complaint. However, it is a matter of discretion and the Magistrate is not bound
to call upon the complainant to remain present before the court and to examine him
upon oath for taking decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint
under section 138 of the N I Act. For the purpose of issuing process under section
200 of the Code, 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. It is only if and where the Magistrate, after considering the
complaint under Section 138 of N I Act, documents produced in support thereof
and the verification in the form of affidavit of the complainant, is of the view that
examination of the complainant or his witness (s) is required, the Magistrate may
call upon the complainant to remain present before the court and examine the
complainant and/or his witness upon oath for taking a decision whether or not to
issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.”
2. Complaint, affidavit of evidence and documents considered in light of above cited
judgment. In opinion of this Court, there is no need to examine the complainant's evidence for
purpose of issuance of process. In view of complaint, documents produced and verification in the
form of affidavit of evidence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against accused
also as per judgments of
The Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as
(2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 103
and
(2016) SCC Online SC 304 as conditions for same are fulfilled.
3. This court takes cognizance of the offence u/s 138 N I Act.
4. Hence, accused be summoned for offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 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. Service be done through all
modes including whatsapp and e-mail to the accused on filing of PF within 15 days and upon filing
of an affidavit stating the e mail address and contact number of the accused and that the same are
functional for the last 30 days.
5. In case the summons are sent via speed post/ registered AD, track report be filed on
the next date of hearing along with the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
6. Matter be taken up now on 22.02.2027.
-- 1 of 2 --
7. 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.”
(Garima Jindal)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-06,
North District
Rohini Courts,Delhi/
28.09.2026
-- 2 of 2 --