CRL.M.C. 4961/2026 $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4961/2026, CRL.M.A. 20801/2026, CRL.M.A. 20800/2026 MAHA INDRA WELFARE FOUNDATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, Adv. versus RAJEEV KUMAR DIRECTOR OF VEDAN CONSULTANTS PVT LTD & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 17.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of summoning order dated 27.07.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 6554/2019 (now CT Case No. 425/2023), pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)-04, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, ‘NI Act’), whereby summoning order was passed against the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, Respondent No.1 instituted the aforesaid complaint alleging that he had known the accused persons and on account of such acquaintance had advanced a personal loan of ₹25,00,000/- in May, 2018 through two cheques of ₹15,00,000/- and ₹10,00,000/- respectively. It was alleged that a loan agreement dated 16.05.2018 was executed in relation to the 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 22/07/2026 at 12:02:34 CRL.M.C. 4961/2026 said transaction, pursuant to which five post-dated cheques of ₹5,00,000/- each were issued towards repayment of the loan. Upon presentation, all the said cheques were dishonoured on 12.09.2018 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. 4. According to the complaint, a promissory note dated 03.11.2018 was executed whereby the repayment schedule was rescheduled. It is further alleged that on 08.11.2018, the accused handed over a fresh cheque bearing No. 000492 dated 12.12.2018 for a sum of ₹15,00,000/-, drawn on the account of the petitioner-Maha Indra Welfare Foundation, with an assurance that the said cheque would be honoured upon presentation. The cheque was thereafter presented for encashment on 25.02.2019 but was returned unpaid on the same day with the remarks “Payment Stopped by Drawer.” 5. It is further alleged that Respondent No.1 thereafter issued a statutory legal notice dated 25.03.2019. Since the amount remained unpaid despite the legal notice, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act came to be instituted before the learned Trial Court on 10.05.2019. 6. The petitioner also moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking de-freezing of its bank account. By order dated 27.07.2024, the learned Trial Court observed that no order directing debit freeze of the petitioner’s bank account had been passed in the complaint proceedings and, accordingly, dismissed the said application while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority. 7. By a separate order of the same date, the learned Trial Court upon consideration of the complaint, the affidavit of evidence and the documents placed on record, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The learned Trial Court observed that the cheque 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 22/07/2026 at 12:02:34 CRL.M.C. 4961/2026 in question had been dishonoured and that the statutory requirements prescribed under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act had been complied with and that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, summons were directed to be issued to the petitioner. The learned Trial Court however, found no sufficient ground to summon Ms. Mallika Thangeswaran observing that she was not the signatory to the cheque in question. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: “Complaint, affidavit of evidence and documents considered in light of above cited judgment. Inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been conducted on the basis of the documents tendered by the complainant in evidence. 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 prima facie sufficient grounds for proceeding further against accused no.1 Maha Indra Welfare Foundation for offence punishable under Section 138 N. I. Act. Further, respondent no.2 not being signatory of the said cheque, there are no sufficient grounds for summoning respondent no.2 Mallika Thangeshwarn. Hence, issue summons against the accused no.1, returnable on NDOH. As the ld. Counsel for the accused Maha Indra Welfare Foundation is present today before the court, he accepts the service of summons on him.” 8. Aggrieved by the summoning order dated 27.07.2024 and the continuation of the complaint proceedings, the petitioner has preferred the present petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned summoning order dated 27.07.2024 has been passed without due application of mind and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the complaint itself does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 138 NI Act, insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 10. Learned counsel submits that the complaint records that the original 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 22/07/2026 at 12:02:34 CRL.M.C. 4961/2026 loan transaction was entered into exclusively between Respondent No.1 and Ms. Mallika Thangeswaran. It is contended that the loan agreement dated 16.05.2018, the promissory note dated 03.11.2018 and the five post-dated cheques forming part of the original transaction pertain solely to Ms. Mallika Thangeswaran and that the petitioner was neither a party to the said transaction nor assumed any liability arising therefrom. 11. It is further submitted that there existed no contract or financial arrangement between the petitioner and Respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, the complaint itself proceeds on the basis that the alleged loan was advanced to Ms. Mallika Thangeswaran and, therefore, the foundational requirement of a legally enforceable debt or liability against the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act, is absent. 12. Learned counsel further submits that the cheque bearing No. 000492 dated 12.12.2018, which forms the subject matter of the complaint, was neither issued nor delivered by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the handing over of the cheque to the complainant. 13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The record has been perused. 14. The challenge in the present petition is to the summoning order dated 27.07.2024, whereby the learned Trial Court has summoned the petitioner to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act. 15. Interference at the stage of issuance of process is warranted only where the complaint fails to disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, has emphasised that summoning an accused 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 22/07/2026 at 12:02:34 CRL.M.C. 4961/2026 is a serious matter and the order issuing process must reflect due application of mind to the complaint and the material placed before the Court. The Supreme Court in, Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) observed as under. “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 16. It is also well settled that while issuing process the learned Magistrate is not expected to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence at the stage of issuance of process. The exercise is confined to seeing whether the complaint and the accompanying material disclose sufficient grounds to proceed. 17. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has taken note of the complaint, the affidavit of evidence and the documents produced by the complainant before issuing summons. The impugned order itself records that, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790, the complaint and documentary material were considered and the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC was conducted on the basis of the documents placed on record. The learned 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 22/07/2026 at 12:02:34 CRL.M.C. 4961/2026 Magistrate thereafter recorded a prima facie satisfaction that sufficient grounds existed for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act. 18. A perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant has specifically alleged that a loan of ₹25,00,000/- was advanced and that the original repayment cheques were dishonoured. Thereafter a fresh cheque bearing No. 000492 dated 12.12.2018 for a sum of ₹15,00,000/-, drawn on the account of the petitioner, was handed over to the complainant with an assurance that the same would be honoured, that the said cheque was also dishonoured. These allegations constitute the foundation of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. 19. The complaint is also supported by the documents relied upon by the complainant, including the loan agreement, the promissory note, the cheque in question, the return memo, the statutory legal notice and the postal records. At this stage, this Court is not required to determine the evidentiary value or correctness of these documents. The question before this Court is only whether the material placed before the learned Magistrate was sufficient to form a prima facie opinion for issuance of process. 20. The impugned order also shows that the learned Magistrate considered the complaint and the documents placed on record before arriving at a prima facie satisfaction. Significantly, the learned Magistrate did not issue summons against every person named in the complaint but declined to summon Ms. Mallika Thangeswaran after noticing that she was not the signatory to the cheque in question. This itself indicates that the learned Magistrate applied his mind to the material placed before him and did not issue the process mechanically. 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 22/07/2026 at 12:02:34 CRL.M.C. 4961/2026 21. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the original loan transaction was entered into with Ms. Mallika Thangeswaran, that the petitioner was not a party to the loan agreement or the promissory note. These submissions, however, constitute matters of defence which require appreciation of evidence and adjudication upon disputed questions of fact. Acceptance of these submissions would require this Court to examine the circumstances in which the cheque came to be issued, the nature of the transaction between the parties, the existence and the evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. Such an exercise falls within the domain of the learned Trial Court and cannot be undertaken while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 22. It is also noted that, no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner nor has any satisfactory explanation been furnished for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court after a considerable lapse of time. Though this Court has examined the matter on merits, the unexplained delay is an additional circumstance which disentitles the petitioner to the discretionary relief sought in the present proceedings. 23. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds no infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court. The complaint and the accompanying documents furnished sufficient material for recording a prima facie satisfaction at the stage of issuance of process. The objections raised by the petitioner are matters which can appropriately be contended before the learned Trial Court during the course of the proceedings. They do not furnish a ground to set aside the summoning order in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 24. Accordingly, the present petition, along with the pending 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 22/07/2026 at 12:02:34 CRL.M.C. 4961/2026 application(s), is dismissed. 25. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 17, 2026/prg/P 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 22/07/2026 at 12:02:34