Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 96
CC NI ACT 5348/2025
SHRI AMIT GUPTA Vs. SHRI BHANU PRATAP SINGH
(Subhash Place)
27.11.2025
File received after transfer from Digital Court02. No adverse order is
being passed today.
Fresh Case u/s 138 NI Act is received. It be checked and registered as
per rules.
Present: Ld. counsel for the complainant through VC.
"Evidence by way of affidavit tendered by the complainant.
Documents exhibited. Presummoning evidence stands closed.
Arguments on summoning heard.
I have gone through the entire record including the com
plaint and the documents. It is alleged that accused has issued the cheque in
question to the complainant to discharge 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 limita
tion. In my considered opinion, prima facie there is sufficient material avail
able on record to summon the accused.
The counsel for the complainant requests that the presum
moning may be carried out in absence of AR of the complainant in terms of
the dictum of A C Narayanan judgment. 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 In
dia has held that “...it is a matter of discretion 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 issu
-- 1 of 2 --
ing 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 further
against accused person(s) for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.
Hence, accused be summoned for offence u/s 138 of Ne
gotiable Instruments Act on filing of PF/RC. In the event the house/of
fice/premises is found to be locked/refusal to accept the service/any other
contingency 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 pro
viding of such details on affidavit by complainant. Complainant is also at
liberty to accompany the process server for effective service of summons.
Matter be taken up now on 22.07.2026.
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 al
lowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused.”
(SANYAM JAIN)
JMFC04/NorthWest/ Delhi
27.11.2025
-- 2 of 2 --