Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 43 CC NI ACT / 1851/2026
AMRIK SINGH Vs. SHRADHA DEEVADI
PS (Shalimar Bagh)
11.04.2026
Present: Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Matter is listed for consideration.
Today, an application for condonation of delay has been filed.
Taken on record.
Heard. Record perused.
It is submitted that the matter had been originally filed within
the prescribed period of limitation , however, due to objection regarding
jurisdiction the matter had to be refiled due to which a delay of 6 days has
been caused in the filing of the matter.
As per the judgment in P.D. Lakhani vs. United Bank of India
decided by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 07.02.2020, the
application for condonation of delay may be decided without mandatorily
hearing the accused.
In
Collector, Land Acquistion, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)
2 SCC 107, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that while
considering condonation of delay application, court should not have hyper-
technical approach and it is in the interest of substantial justice that matter
be heard on merits. It was held that
“the expression ‘sufficient cause’
employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to
apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-
that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of courts.”
In
Brushman India Ltd. vs State & Anr. (2018) 254 DLT 201
while relying upon judgments passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Collector (LA) v. Katiji, Pawan Kumar Ralli v. Maninder Singh Narula,
(2014) 15 SCC 245, Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan
Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998)
7 SCC 123 held that liberal approach has to be adopted while considering an
application seeking condonation of delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act
and proviso to Section 142 NI Act are similarly worded and therefore, as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judgments and
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Brushman India Ltd. (supra), for
considering “sufficient cause”, courts should not have pedantic approach
rather they should have liberal approach in such matters so that substantive
rights of the parties are not defeated merely because of delay.
In the facts of the present matter, considering the reasons
given for the delay and further relying upon the law laid down in the above
mentioned judgments, in my opinion, complainant has shown sufficient
ground.
Accordingly, the delay in filing of the complaint is hereby
condoned which otherwise shall lead to the defeat of the substantive right of
complainant. Thus, it is better that the matter be heard on merits to subserve
the ends of substantive justice. The application is therefore allowed.
On the basis of the complaint and the original documents
annexed with the complaint, the court is satisfied that the complaint is filed
-- 1 of 2 --
within limitation period and falls in the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
Accordingly, cognizance of the offence is taken.
Complaint, affidavit of evidence and documents considered.
In light of judgment titled as “A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Anr.” (2014) 11 SCC 790, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
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”, this court is of the opinion that
there is no need to examine the complainant for purpose of issuance of
process. There are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against accused
for offence punishable under Section 138 N. I. Act.
Hence, issue summons against the accused, on
P.F./R.C./Approved Courier for 22.08.2026. The complainant can
provide email address/whatsapp number of accused person, if any for
service. The service of summons through email, whatsapp message(s) and
text message(s) is also permitted provided the complainant files an affidavit
to the effect that number on which the said message(s) are sent is/are of the
accused and further subject to filing of report of service. The process server
is directed to serve the summons by way of affixation, if premises found
closed or same could not be served personally or on any adult male member.
An endorsement be also made that if application for compounding at first or
second hearing is made the court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest
as per judgment of M/s Meters and Instruments P. Ltd Vs. Kanchan
Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560 and if settlement is made at subsequent stage
the consequences as envisaged in Damodar S. Prabhu (2010) 5 SCC 663
shall be enforced.
Complainant is directed to file PF and take steps within 30
days including providing copy(ies) of complaint otherwise the complaint
may be dismissed U/s 204(4) Cr. P.C.
(ABHINAV SINGH)
JMFC-01/NW/Rohini
11.04.2026
-- 2 of 2 --