Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 39 CC NI ACT / 2530/2024 Simplee Pharma Vs. Shri Ram Farma /0 (Maurya Enclave)
Proceedings conducted online through video conferencing using CISCO WEBEX software.
(The court is physically operational from Rouse Avenue Court complex.
Work station of the court is functioning from Rohini Court Complex.)
11.11.2025
Present: Sh. Hardik, Ld. counsel for complainant.
Sh. Satish, Ld. counsel along-with proposed accused.
Complainant has filed an application u/s 142(1)(b) of NI Act seeking condonation
of delay in filing of the present complaint. It is submitted that there has been a delay of 25 days
in filing of the present complaint as the original documents were misplaced due to renovation at
the office of the counsel for complainant. The said application is strongly opposed by ld
counsel for proposed accused. Though, the reason so furnished is not so justifiable, but the
delay in itself does not seem to be so substantial so as to defeat the substantive right which has
accrued in favour of the complainant. Further, the complainant cannot be punished for the fault
of his counsel. The Court must always lean in favour of protecting rights of an innocent
complainant rather than dismissing the complaint on mere technical grounds. Therefore, in the
interest of justice, the said application stands allowed and the delay stands condoned subject to
cost of Rs. 4,000/- to be paid to accused.
Arguments heard. Records perused.
This Court has perused the complaint, original cheque, bank return memo, legal
notice, postal receipt and service report pertaining to the legal notice. Perusal of the said record
reveals that the present complaint has been filed within limitation and this Court has the territo-
rial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Further, as per the averments made in the complaint,
prima facie, an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 appears to have been com-
mitted Therefore, in view of the same, this Court takes cognizance of offence u/s 138 NI Act.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in the cases of
AC Narayanan v.
State of
Maharastra and
Re Expeditious Trial of NI Act cases that the examination of complainant and
his witnesses on oath is a matter of discretion of the Magistrate and their evidence given on af-
-- 1 of 2 --
fidavit, if found satisfactory, maybe read as it is for the purpose of issuance of process. Thus, as
the present case has been filed in complete particulars, this Court does not deem it necessary to
call upon the complainant and his witnesses and conduct their examination on oath.
Considering the averments made in the complaint, documents filed along-with
and affidavit of the complainant in support of the complaint, this Court finds that there is suffi-
cient material on record to summon the accused.
Since, the accused has entered into appearance today, summons are deemed to be
served upon him.
Further, the accused has been informed about the guidelines laid down in the case
titled as “
Damodar S Prabhu v.
Sayed Babala H” that “he can make an application for com-
pounding 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.
And if the application is made at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to
the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be de-
posited with the Legal Services Authority or such other authority as this Court deems fit.”
Put up for furnishing of bail bond/framing of notice and further proceedings on
20.03.2026.
(Surbhi Sharma)
(JMFC(NI Act) Digital court01)
NorthWest, Rohini
New Delhi/11.11.2025
-- 2 of 2 --