Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 63 CC NI ACT / 3828/2024 LOKESHWAR KAPOOR Vs. SARTHAK TANEJA /0 (Maurya
Enclave)
Proceedings conducted online through video conferencing using CISCO WEBEX software.
26.07.2025
Present: Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Ld. counsel alongwith complainant.
Sh. Abhinav, Ld. counsel alongwith proposed accused.
Since proposed accused has entered into appearance through counsel, his right to be
heard at the stage of pre cognizance stand opened. Copy of complaint has been supplied to proposed
accused today.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Ld. Counsel for the proposed accused person submits that the present complaint is not
maintainable against him since the same is based on forged and fabricated facts. Per Contra, Ld. Coun-
sel for the Complainant submits that the present complaint has been filed as per law and is well within
limitation as well as jurisdiction of this Court.
The facts on the basis of which the proposed accused person has submitted that there is
no legally enforceable debt or liability existing towards the complainant can only be substantiated by
way of leading evidence which in turn becomes a subject matter of trial. At the stage of taking cogni -
sance, the Court merely has to see if the facts as stated in the complaint,
prima facie, reveal commis-
sion of any offence and thus cannot conduct a roving inquiry and decide upon questions of fact. There-
fore, at this stage, this Court finds no merit in the submissions of the proposed accused person.
This Court has perused the complaint, cheque, bank return memo, legal notice, postal re-
ceipt and service report pertaining to the legal notice. Perusal of the said record reveals that the present
complaint has been filed within limitation and this Court has the territorial jusrisdiction to entertain the
same. Further, as per the averments made in the complaint,
prima facie, an offence u/s 138 NI Act ap-
pears to have been committed Therefore, in view of the same, this Court takes cognizance of offence
u/s 138 NI Act.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in the cases of
AC Narayanan v.
State of Maha-
rastra and
Re Expeditious Trial of NI Act cases that the examination of complainant and his witnesses
on oath is a matter of discretion of the Magistrate and their evidence given on affidavit, if found satis-
factory, maybe read as it is for the purpose of issuance of process. Thus, as the present case has been
-- 1 of 2 --
filed in complete particulars, this Court does not deem it necessary to call upon the complainant and his
witnesses and conduct their examination on oath.
Considering the averments made in the complaint, documents filed along-with and affi-
davit of the complainant in support of the complaint, this Court finds that there is sufficient material on
record to summon the accused.
Since accused has entered into appearance summons are deemed to be served upon him.
Put up for furnishing of bail bonds, framing of notice and further proceedings on
24.12.2025.
(Surbhi Sharma)
(JMFC(NI Act) Digital court02)
NorthWest, Rohini
New Delhi/26.07.2025
-- 2 of 2 --