Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 58 CC NI ACT / 3126/2025
Anantajit Steels Private Limited Vs. Manoj Kumar Goyal
/0 (Maurya Enclave)
11.11.2025
Reader of the court is on leave today.
Proceedings are conducted through VC using CISCO Webex Meeting App.
Present: Ms. Shubhi Singh, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
As per the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Sanjabij
Tari Vs Kishore S. Borcar & Anr Criminal Appeal 1755/2010 Decided on 25.09.2025 the
requirement of the service of pre-cognizance notice has been dispensed with.
Complaint and documents annexed with the file perused. Complaint is within
limitation and within the jurisdiction of this Court. I hereby take cognizance of the offence
punishable u/s 138 NI Act.
Arguments on summoning heard.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as
A.C. Narayanan vs.
State of Maharashtra (2014) 11 SCC 790 has held as under,
“29. From a conjoint reading of Sections 138, 142 and 145
of the N.I. Act
as well as Section
200 of the Code, it is clear that it is open to the
Magistrate to issue process on the basis of the contents of the complaint,
documents in support thereof and the affidavit submitted by the
complainant in support of the complaint….
…33.4 In the light of Section 145 of the NI Act, 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
and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the
complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the
complainant or his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not
to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.”
Similar directions have been issued in
Indian Bank Association & Ors. vs.
Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 590 and
Rajesh Agarwal vs. State (2010) 171 DLT 51.
On consideration of the complaint, annexed documents and the verification
affidavit of the complainant, this Court is of the opinion that
prima facie there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused mentioned below for the
commission of offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. There is
no requirement for examination of the complainant or witnesses for purpose of issuance
of process in view of the above-mentioned directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and
-- 1 of 2 --
Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In terms of inquiry, all the statutory requirements have been
complied with. The complaint is filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under
Section 142(1)(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Let accused Manoj Kumar Goyal be summoned on filing of PF, RC/
through all modes including Dasti, Speed Post/ approved Courier service/E-mail.
Compliance of the same be done within 15 days from today.
Complainant is directed to place the tracking report of summons sent
through speed post on record on the next date.
As per the guidelines laid down as in the case titled as
Damodar S. Prabhu
Vs. Sayed Babalal H, AIR 2010 (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 01.04.2026.
The P.A. is directed to upload the ordersheet on layers and CIS.
(Shraddha Tripathi)
JMFC (NI ACT) Digital Court (N/W),
Rohini Courts, Delhi, 11.11.2025
-- 2 of 2 --