Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 68 CC NI ACT / 3809/2025
Juneja finance company Vs. Armeet singh /0
(Maurya Enclave)
20.01.2026
The court is dealing with double cause list as the matters
have been transferred from NI Act Digital Court to this court
and pendency of this court has also doubled.
Present : Ld. counsel for complainant with AR of
complainant.
Physical file has been submitted by AR of
complainant today itself.
Earlier pre- cognizance notice was issued. However,
in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjabij
Tari v Kishore S Borcar 2025 INSC 1158, the same is not
required.
It is prayed that the accused be summoned.
Heard. Record perused.
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant
against the accused due to dishonour of the cheque(s) in
question. I have gone through the complaint and the annexed
documents. Complaint is within limitation and within the
jurisdiction of this court. The complainant partnership alleges
that it had given a loan against vehicle to the accused Armeet
Singh and Sh. Sandeep Ahjuha and Smt. Arvinder Kaur had
stood as guarantor. As the Principal Borrower Armeet Singh
failed to pay installments on time, he entered into a settlement
agreement and issued the cheque in question in discharge of his
liability against the loan. The cheque got dishonoured and
-- 1 of 3 --
remained unpaid despite issuance of legal demand notice. Prima
facie, there is sufficient material on record to take cognizance of
offence u/s 138 NI Act.
2. The partner/AR of complainant partnership submits :
a. that co-guarantors have not made any payment towards
the settlement amount/cheque amount.
b. No case has been filed against guarantor for recovery of
the settlement/cheque amount qua this loan amount/loan
account.
c. The complainant partnership shall apprise the court if
any amount is realized from guarantor against the loan in
question in future.
d. The cheque in question is drawn on from the joint
account of Armeet Singh and Smt. Arvinder Kaur
however, the complainant is not proceeding against Arvinder
Kaur as the cheque has been signed by only Armeet Singh.
3. Considering the documentary evidence on record, complainant
is not examined at this pre-summoning stage in terms of
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. C. Narayan v State
of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 790.
3. Issue summons to the accused Armeet Singh.
4. Let summons be issued by the following modes:-
a. upon filing PF/RC/Speed Post within 15 working days
from today. If necessary, let affixation be done in terms of
section 65 CrPC.
b. Dasti summons are also permitted.
-- 2 of 3 --
c. Electronic Mode (Subject to filing of affidavit by the
complainant verifying the email ID/phone/Whatsapp
number of the accused)
5. The accused shall also be apprised that if he so opts he/she
may settle the matter with the complainant by the first or second
date of hearing and any delay in settlement may lead to
imposition of further costs in terms of decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Sanjabij Tari v Kishore S Borcar
2025 INSC 1158. Ahlmad is directed to make the necessary
endorsement on the summons in compliance of the above stated
judgment.
6. Put up for appearance of the accused on 29.07.2026.
Signatures of AR of complainant has been taken on this order
sheet to signify their presence and consent.
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS DELHI/20.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --