Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 14 CC NI ACT / 2993/2026 NEERAJ DHAKA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR
30.06.2026
Present : Counsel for complainant through VC.
Arguments on the point of summoning / cognizance heard.
I have gone through the entire record including the complaint and the documents.
It is alleged that accused has issued the cheque in question to the complainant to discharge his lia-
bility. On its presentation the same was dishonored. Therefore, demand notice was sent to the ac-
cused 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. I hereby take cog-
nizance.
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 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 ex-
amine 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 pur-
pose 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 person(s)
for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.
Cognizance of the offence is taken. For the reasons cited above, accused Sunil Ku-
mar be summoned for offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments 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. 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 effective service of summons.
Matter be taken up now on 02.03.2026.
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 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.”
(Reetika Jain)
JMFC-05(North-West)
Delhi 30.06.2026
-- 1 of 1 --