Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 4 CC NI ACT / 6053/2026 JYOTI INSTALMENT PVT LTD Vs. ms
kashish jewellers /0 (Maurya Enclave)
01.09.2026
Present: Ms. Vidhi Anand, Ld. Counsel for the 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 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 05.3.2027
(Jitender)
JMFC-07, NW Rohini, Delhi
01.09.2026
-- 1 of 1 --