$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010204682023 + CRL.M.C. 3827/2023 & CRL.M.A. 14369/2023 SHAKEEL AHMED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sheikh Imran Alam and Mr. Iftekhar Ahmed, Advs. versus MOHD. AJAJ .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 12.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned MM-01 (NI ACT) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 727/2020, whereby the petitioner was summoned for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the petitioner had borrowed a friendly loan of ₹83,00,000/- and, towards discharge of the said liability, had issued cheque bearing No. 000905 for ₹83,00,000/- dated 10.07.2019 for the said This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:21:40 amount. The said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks “Payment Stopped by Drawer”, pursuant to which a statutory demand notice dated 07.11.2019 was issued and the petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount. The learned Trial Court, after considering the complaint, pre- summoning evidence and documents on record, passed the summoning order dated 14.01.2020 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint does not disclose any legally enforceable liability of the petitioner towards the respondent. It is submitted that although the respondent has alleged that the petitioner had borrowed a friendly loan of ₹83,00,000/-, neither the date of advancement of the alleged loan nor the mode of payment has been disclosed in the complaint. It is further submitted that even in the pre-summoning evidence, no particulars regarding the date or mode of advancement of the alleged loan have been furnished. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the cheque in question bearing No. 000905 was not issued by the petitioner towards discharge of any liability. According to the petitioner, the cheque was a signed blank cheque which had been kept in his office for payment of household/utility expenses and was allegedly stolen by the respondent, who had access to the petitioner's office on account of their friendly relationship. It is submitted that the petitioner had lodged a police complaint dated 12.07.2019 alleging theft of the cheque book, including the cheque in question. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the statutory demand notice was issued beyond the period prescribed under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, the return This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:21:40 memo is dated 07.10.2019 and, therefore, the statutory notice ought to have been issued within thirty days thereof. It is submitted that the notice was dispatched only on 08.11.2019, resulting in a delay of two days. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 2083/2013, decided on 11.12.2013. 7. It is also submitted that the statutory notice itself does not disclose the date or mode of advancement of the alleged loan. 8. Learned counsel further challenges the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that although the complaint states that the respondent maintained his account with Yes Bank Limited at Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, the bank return memo bears the address of Yes Bank at Sector-63, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. It is therefore contended that the complaint was filed before a Court lacking territorial jurisdiction. 9. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the summoning order has been passed mechanically and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 10. This court notes that Notice was issued to the respondent on 24.05.2023. The respondent appeared in person on 12.03.2025 and submitted that his counsel was unavailable on the said date. However, thereafter, despite repeated opportunities, the respondent has neither appeared before this Court on any subsequent date of hearing nor filed a reply to the present petition. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 12. At the outset, the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be noticed. The said jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly and with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:21:40 circumspection. At the stage of considering a challenge to summons in a criminal proceedings, this Court is not required to examine the correctness of the allegations, appreciate the evidence or adjudicate upon the defence of the accused. Where the material placed on record discloses the commission of the offence alleged, the proceedings ought not to be interdicted at the threshold merely on the basis of a defence which requires evidentiary consideration. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, held that the High Court should be slow in quashing proceedings at the pre-trial stage and ought not to evaluate the truthfulness of the allegations or the weight of the defence raised by the accused. 13. In the present case, the complaint alleges that the petitioner had availed a friendly loan of ₹83,00,000/- from the respondent and, towards discharge of the said liability, issued cheque bearing No. 000905 dated 10.07.2019 for the said amount. The cheque, upon presentation, was dishonoured with the remarks “Payment Stopped by Drawer” vide return memo dated 07.10.2019. Thereafter, a statutory demand notice dated 07.11.2019 was sent to the petitioner which was received back unserved. The complaint is accompanied by the subject cheque, return memo, statutory demand notice and the relevant postal documents. The aforesaid allegations also find reiteration in the pre- summoning evidence. 14. From the material placed on record, it is thus discernible that the foundational ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:21:40 Instruments Act, 1881 are prima facie disclosed. At this stage, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would also operate in accordance with law, subject to the right of the petitioner to rebut the same during trial. The Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 , while dealing with the presumption under Section 139 NI Act has observed as follows: “xxx 20. Section 139 introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumptions of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the nonexistence of the presumed fact as held in Hiten P. Dalal. xxx 32. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgments referred to above is that the onus to rebut the presumption under Section 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused and the fact that the cheque might be post-dated does not absolve the drawer of a cheque of the penal consequences of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. xxx” 15. In the present case, The petitioner has raised a defence that the cheque in question was a signed blank cheque which had allegedly been stolen from This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:21:40 his office and subsequently misused by the respondent and that the petitioner had lodged a police complaint dated 12.07.2019 in respect of the alleged theft. 16. The aforesaid defence is a matter which would require appreciation of evidence. Whether the cheque was in fact stolen, whether it came into the possession of the respondent without authority, whether the particulars were subsequently filled in and whether the cheque was issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable liability are all matters which are required to be established by evidence before the learned Trial Court. The mere lodging of a police complaint regarding the alleged theft does not, by itself, establish the truth of the allegations contained therein. 17. In Bhai Manjit Singh v. Radhika Chowdhury (Deceased) through LRs., 2024:DHC:2380, in a challenge to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the defence of the petitioner that the cheque had been stolen was held to be a matter requiring appreciation of evidence and, therefore, not amenable to adjudication in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner therein was held to have an opportunity to establish such defence before the learned Trial Court. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also questioned the absence of the date and mode of advancement of the alleged loan of ₹83,00,000/- in the complaint and the statutory demand notice. Such contention also relates to the evidentiary aspect of the underlying transaction. Whether the respondent is ultimately able to establish the alleged loan and the existence of a legally enforceable liability are matters which may be tested during trial and do not, at this stage, negate the prima facie case disclosed from the complaint and the accompanying material. 19. The petitioner has further relied upon Kamlesh Kumar v. State of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:21:40 Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 2083/2013, decided on 11.12.2013, to contend that the statutory notice was issued beyond the period prescribed under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While the return memo bears the date 07.10.2019, the respondent asserts that the same was received on 10.10.2019 and the statutory notice was thereafter issued on 07.11.2019. The precise date on which the respondent received information regarding dishonour is a disputed question of fact, which requires to be established by evidence and cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 20. The petitioner has also raised a grievance with regard to territorial jurisdiction on the basis of the discrepancy between the address of the bank branch mentioned in the complaint and that reflected in the return memo. The said grievance may appropriately be raised before and considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law and does not, at this stage, warrant interference by this Court. 21. It is a settled position that at the stage of issuance of process, the learned Magistrate is required to examine whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused and is not required to conclusively determine the liability or adjudicate upon the defence. In the present case, the complaint, read with the material placed on record, discloses the alleged liability, issuance of the cheque, dishonour thereof, issuance of the statutory demand notice and failure to make payment. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the material before it, accordingly found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner. 22. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned summoning order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned MM-01 (NI ACT) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:21:40 CC No. 727/2020. The defences raised by the petitioner are matters for adjudication before the learned Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence. 23. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 24. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 25. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the learned Trial Court in considering the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. 26. A copy of this order be sent to the Learned Trial Court for necessary compliance and information. 27. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 12, 2026/sd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:21:40