Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 7 CC NI ACT / 3166/2024 Kingston Multi Products India Pvt Ltd Vs.
Shree Ganesh Agencies (Subhash Place)
12.06.2026
Present : Counsel for complainant.
Arguments on the point of summoning / cognizance heard.
I have gone through the entire record including the complaint and the documents. It is al-
leged that accused has issued the cheque in question to the complainant to discharge his liability. On its pre -
sentation the same was dishonored. 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. 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 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 tak-
ing decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. For the pur -
pose of issuing process under Section 200 of the Code, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verifica-
tion 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 judg-
ment. 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 person(s) for offence punishable under
Section 138 NI Act.
Cognizance of the offence is taken. For the reasons cited above, accused/proprietor Harsh be
summoned for offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on filing of PF/RC. In the event the house/of-
fice/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 07.01.2027.
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)
Delhi 12.06.2026
-- 1 of 1 --