Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CC no. 3569/26
Taru Agencies & Investments Vs. Mirtunjay Bharti.
04.06.2026
Fresh complaint U/s 138 NI Act received by way of assignment. It be
checked and registered.
Present: Sh Gagan Jindal, 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 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
-- 1 of 2 --
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 through all modes 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 11.12.2026
(Gaurav Katariya)
JMFC-7(NW)/RC/Delhi
04.6.2026
-- 2 of 2 --