19.8.2026 756 sb CRR 3118 of 2025 With CRAN 4 of 2026 CRAN 5 of 2026 M/s. Apirias Overseas India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Kasturi Marketing Mr. Debojyoti Deb Mr. Somdyuti Parekh Ms. Indrani Roy Mr. Harshwardhan Jha …for the Petitioners Mr. Soumya Nag Ms. Sumitava Chakraborty Ms. Bratati Pramanick …for the Opposite Party In this application, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.12.2024. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the court below was of the view that pre-cognizance notice is required in a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly, by an order dated 18.7.2024, he issued pre-cognizance notice to the petitioner under Section 223 of the BNSS vide order dated 17th August, 2024. Thereafter, considering the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar and another reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 2069, the court below took the view that in case of a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, pre-cognizance hearing is not required and therefore, he made a direction for appearance of the petitioner. However, when the petitioners failed to appear, the court below without considering the aforesaid background, 2 issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners. He however makes a prayer that liberty may be given to him so that he may surrender before the court below. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party, I find that the court below has not committed any mistake in observing that pre-cognizance hearing under section 223 of BNSS in a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is unwarranted. However, considering the innocuous prayer made by the petitioners, the instant application being CRR 3118 of 2025 is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to surrender before the court below within a period of two weeks from this date and in the event of such surrender, the court below will dispose of his prayer in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made herein. The impugned order by which warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners shall remain stayed for a period of two weeks or till each of the petitioners surrender before court below, whichever is earlier. Connected applications, are also disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)