Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Rakesh Kansal Vs. Anuj Goyal
Ct case No 2186/2026
13.04.2026
Fresh complaint U/s 138 NI Act received by way of
assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Sh. Devyansh Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for
complainant
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
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
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...”
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)
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
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 21.09.2026
(Gaurav Katariya)
JMFC-7(NW)/RC/Delhi
13.4.2026
-- 3 of 3 --