Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 18
CC NI ACT 261/2026
SAJJAN JINDAL Vs. M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD
(Begum Pur)
04.04.2026
Undersigned is also looking after the work of Sh. Gaurav Katariya,
Ld. JMFC, who is stated to be on leave.
Present: Complainant with Ld. counsel Sh. A.K. Gupta and Ms.
Parul.
"Evidence by way of affidavit tendered by the com
plainant. Documents exhibited. Presummoning evidence stands closed.
Arguments on cognizance heard.
I have gone through the entire record including the com
plaint and the documents. It is alleged that accused has issued the cheque
in question to the complainant to discharge his liability. On its presenta
tion the same was dishonored. Therefore, demand notice was sent to the
accused by the complainant. Despite service / deemed service of said no
tice, accused has failed to make the payment as per provisions of Nego
tiable Instruments Act.
Complaint is filed within the prescribed period of limita
tion.
The counsel for the complainant requests that the pre
summoning may be carried out in absence of AR of the complainant in
terms of the dictum of A C Narayanan judgment. She/He further submits
that dictum of A C Narayanan is also applicable to complaints u/s 138
NI Act.
In matter of “A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharash
tra & Anr.” (2014) 11 SCC 790, Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India has held that “...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 NI Act. For the pur
pose of issuing process under Section 200 of the Code, it is open to the
-- 1 of 2 --
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...”
Complaint, affidavit of evidence and documents consid
ered 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 pro
ceeding further against accused person(s) i.e. accused no. 1 company and
accsued no. 2 being authorised signatory for offence punishable under
Section 138 NI Act.
Cognizance of the offence is taken. For the reasons cited
above, accused no. 1 and 2 be summoned for offence u/s 138 of Nego
tiable Instruments Act on filing of PF/RC. In the event the house/of
fice/premises is found to be locked/refusal to accept the service/any other
contingency the process be served through affixation. Steps be taken
within 30 days from today. Ahlmad to issue summons within 10 days
from filing of PF. Let summons be also issued upon accused through
WhatsApp upon providing of such details on affidavit by complainant.
Complainant is also at liberty to accompany the process server for effec
tive service of summons.
Matter be taken up now on 29.10.2026.
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 hear
ing of the case and if such an application is made, compounding may be
allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused.”
(SANYAM JAIN)
JMFC04/NorthWest/ Delhi
04.04.2026
-- 2 of 2 --