Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 21 CC NI ACT / 7378/2026 Taru Agencies And Investments Pvt Ltd Vs. Gaurav Malhotra 50
(NSP Metro)
08.10.2026
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.
Fresh complaint case received. It be checked and registered as per rules.
Present: None.
List for arguments on the point of cognizance on 14.11.2026.
(Reetika Jain)
JMFC-05, North-West
Rohini/Delhi/08.10.2026
At 02:54 PM
Present: Counsel for complainant.
Arguments on the point of summoning / cognizance heard.
I have gone through the entire record including the complaint and the docu-
ments. It is alleged that accused has issued the cheque in question to the complainant to dis-
charge his liability. On its presentation 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 judg -
ment. 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 discre-
tion 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 fur-
ther against accused person(s) for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.
Cognizance of the offence is taken. For the reasons cited above, accused /sig
natory 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 con-
tingency 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. Com-
plainant is also at liberty to accompany the process server for effective service of summons.
Matter be taken up now on 01.05.2027.
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.”
Previous date given stands cancelled.
(Reetika Jain)
JMFC-05, North-West
Rohini/Delhi/08.10.2026
-- 1 of 1 --