Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 15 CC NI ACT / 4789/2026 JAI OVERSEAS CHEMICAL LTD Vs. SUPERTUFF
INDUSTRIES PVT LTD (NSP Metro)
07.10.2026
This court is dealing with pendency of more than 10,000 matters
due to which shorter dates are not possible.
Reader Sh. Sanjay is on uninformed leave since 24.09.2026, Ahlmad Sh. Manoj is on
leave today and Asst. Ahlmad Ms.
Kalpana is on Medical leave since 30.09.2026.
Present: Counsel Sh. Sandeep 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 com-
plainant to discharge his liability. On its presentation the same was dishonored. There-
fore, 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 provi-
sions of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Complaint is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. I hereby
take cognizance.
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 ap-
plicable 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, docu-
ments 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, ac-
cused no. 1 and 2 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 fil-
ing 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 28.05.2027.
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
Rohini/Delhi/07.10.2026
-- 1 of 1 --