Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 20 CC NI ACT / 4884/2025
PARUL KHANDELWAL THROUGH SPA
HOLDER MR ANKUR KAHDNEALWAL Vs.
SHYAM MALIK PROPRIETOR OF
DHARAM ENTERPRISES
/0 (Keshav Puram)
05.09.2026
Undersigned is having pendency of approximately 7500 cases in
this court.
Present: Sh R. K. Burman, ld counsel for 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
-- 1 of 1 --