Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 46 CC NI ACT 4090/2023
AJAY SHARMA Vs. DEEPANSHU SAINI /0 ()
07.05.2026
Undersigned is having pendency of approximately 8300 cases in this court.
One of the stenographers is on leave today.
Present: Mr. Aakash Singh & Ms. Prachi Gulati, Ld. proxy
Counsel for the complainant.
Mr. Aakash Gupta, Ld. counsel for the accused
through VC.
Proposed accused in person.
Today, matter was fixed for application filed by the Ld.
Counsel for complainant for condoning the delay of 4 days in filing the
matter.
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that the
present case was filed after 4 days of passing of the limitation period as the
previous Counsel (Main counsel) was hospitalized from 22.09 till
26.09.2023. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that
the delay was neither intentional nor malifide but due to the medical
reasons.
It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for complainant
that no irreparable laws or no prejudice would be caused to the accused if
the present application is allowed. However, if the application is not
allowed the complainant would face not only loss of finances but his right to
be heard will also be prejudiced.
Ld. Counsel for accused has vehemently opposed the
application that the complainant had enough time and opportunity to file the
case well within the time as the affidavit was signed on 19.09.2023.
I have heard the submission of both the parties. It is pertinent
to mention that the power of condoning the limitation period shall be used
sparingly. Further, the balance of justice shall also be seen of both the
parties. It is imperative to mention that there is a delay of 4 days only and if
the present application is allowed no prejudice would be caused to the
accused nor any loss will also be caused to the accused. However, court
cannot be unmindful of the fact that the complainant had filed the present
case after the delay of 4 days therefore, court deems it fit to allow the
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
present application subject to the cost of Rs.1500/- to be paid to the DLSA
North-West.
Application stands disposed of as allowed.
Today, the matter was fixed for consideration.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has advanced his
submissions and has presented the case.
It is pertinent to mention that as per the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabig Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. 1755/2020, it was held that there is no need to issue
the notice to the accused at the pre-cognizance.
Arguments on summoning heard.
I have gone through the entire record including the complaint
and the documents. It is alleged that accused has executed the cheque in
question in favour of the complainant to discharge the liability and the said
cheque was dishonored on the due date. Therefore, demand notice was sent
to the accused by the complainant. Despite service/ deemed service of said
notice, accused has failed to make the payment as per provisions of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Complaint is filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
In my considered opinion, prima facie there is sufficient material available
on record to summon the accused.
The Ld. 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. 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 Maharashtra &
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 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...”
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
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 for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.
Hence, accused be summoned for offence u/s 138 Negotiable
instrument Act read with section 142 NI 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. PF
be filed within fifteen working days.
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.”
Put up for appearance of accused on NDOH.
Copy of the complaint has been supplied to the accused.
Accused is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/-along with one surety of the like amount.
Let matter be referred to upcoming lok adalat on 09.05.2026.
If matter is not settled, put up for framing of notice on
05.10.2026.
(Gaurav Katariya)
JMFC-7(NW)/RC/Delhi
07.05.2026
-- 3 of 3 --