Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 17 CC NI ACT / 4355/2024 AIPL ZORRO PVT LTD Vs. RATAN
KUMAR NIWAS CHANDRA SINGH /0 (Subhash Place)
24.09.2026
Undersigned is having pendency of approximately 7600 cases in
this court.
Present: Sh Mrigank Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Tracking report has been filed.
I take cognizance of the offence U/s 138 NI Act.
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
-- 1 of 1 --