Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 55 CC NI ACT / 29521/2024
Lovlesh Jain Vs. SUNRAYS INFRASTRUCTURE
(Model Town)
29.04.2025
Present: Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Mr. Rahul Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for and with accused persons no. 2 and 3
at workstation.
Mr. Deepak Singh, Ld. Counsel for and with proposed accused no. 1.
Mr. Sachin Anand, Ld. Counsel for and with proposed accused persons 4, 5
and 6.
These are five connected matters wherein the present matter is at the stage
of hearing on cognizance and the remaining matter are at the stage of hearing on
application U/s 145(2).
The parties have adopted their arguments already done qua cognizance in
the other four matters.
1. Arguments heard from both the sides on the point of cognizance.
2. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that all the ingredients of the offence
U/s 138 NI Act have been fulfilled prima facie and proposed accused persons be thus,
summoned and tried for the said offence.
3. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for proposed accused person 1 argued that there
is no territorial jurisdiction with the court as the complainant’s bank lies in Model town
and the jurisdiction of the same falls in North West district. The Ld counsel for proposed
accused no 2,3,7 and 8 had argued that the case is a civil in nature, that there are no
signatures of the directors on the business advance agreement and that though these
proposed accused persons, being directors, participate in affairs of the company, but
they did not participate in the present case. Ld counsel for proposed accused no 4 argued
that his specific role in not defined in the complaint. The Ld counsel for proposed
accused no 5 and 6 argued that they left the company in the year 2015 as per the
-- 1 of 2 --
agreement between the promoters and developer but had to continue in ROC records as
they did not receive the payment.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Complainant has filed the pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit
along with the relevant documents including the dishonoured cheques, bank return
memos, legal notice sent to the accused persons and proof of sending the legal notice.
Upon perusal of the documents on record, this court is of the prima facie
view that statutory requirements of Section 138 are met only qua accused no 1,2 and 3.
The prima facie requirements u/s 141 are met qua accused no 2 Kapil Singhal and
accused no 3 Om Chaudhary as in paragraph no 2 of his complaint, the complaint stated
that accused no 2 and 3 are incharge of day to day affairs. Moreover, as per the master
data of the company filed by the complainant only accused 2 and 3 are shown as “whole
time directors”. The territorial jurisdiction of the present case lies with the court as this
court has jurisdiction over matters u/s138 falling in territorial limits of PS Model Town.
There seems to be no ground to proceed against proposed accused no 4,5,6,7 and 8 in
the absence of specific averments about their participation in management and affirms
of the accused company. Therefore, there seems to be sufficient ground to proceed
against the accused no. 1 Sunrays Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, accused no 2 Kapil Singhal
and accused no 3 Om Chaudhary. As counsels for the above mentioned accused persons
have already appeared on their behalf, the requirement to send formal summons is
hereby dispensed with. The above named accused persons shall remain present either
physically or digitally on NDOH.
Put up for appearance of accused(s)/framing of notice on 18.07.2025.
(HIMANSHI TYAGI)
JMFC/NI ACT/DIGITAL COURT-01
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS
29.04.2025
-- 2 of 2 --