Gng Stock Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Geeta Monga

Court
Delhi High Court

$~95
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 05 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010537492026
+ CRL.M.C. 8360/2026 & CRL.M.A. 35018/2026
GNG STOCK HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Urooj Chaudhary and Ms. Esha
Sharma, Advs.
Mob: 7088552214
Email:
[email protected]

versus

GEETA MONGA .....Respondent
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking directions for
expeditious/time-bound disposal of the Complaint Case being CC 6130/2020,
titled as GNG Stock Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Geeta Monga, filed by the
petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1988 (“NI Act”), pending adjudication before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class (“JMFC”) (NI Act)-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District,
Delhi.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 1 of 11

filed by the petitioner has remained pending for almost 06 (six) years, despite
the statutory mandate of expeditious disposal of proceedings under Section
138 of the NI Act, and the matter has not reached its logical conclusion.
3. He further submits that the present petition is confined to seeking
expeditious disposal of the Complaint Case pending before the Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the petitioner is
not seeking any direction concerning the merits of the Complaint Case or the
manner in which the Trial Court is required to adjudicate the said matter.
5. He draws the attention of this Court to the various order sheets of the
Trial Court to submit that the respondent herein has repeatedly sought
adjournments and has failed to appear and comply with the directions of the
Trial Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the
th
attention of this Court to the order dated 18 August, 2023, passed by the Trial
Court, wherein, it has been held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

12. In a nutshell, the only factor which could have come to the
rescue of the accused while deciding the present application
would have been if he could have shown that he has not been
dragging/delaying the present proceedings. However, the same is
not the position in the case at hand. Perusal of the record reveals
that on multiple occasions exemption applications were moved on
behalf of the accused and adjournment cost of Rs. 2000/- was also
imposed upon the accused vide order dated 20.03.2023. It is also
pertinent to note that the accused also sought an adjournment to
file a reply to the application under consideration, despite the
supply of electronic copy of the said application in advance.
Accordingly, it is apparent that the present trial was protracted
and delayed due to the non appearance and
adjournments/exemptions sought by the accused. Hence, in
furtherance of the object of Section 143A NI Act which is to
provide some respite to the Complainant if the final disposal of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 2 of 11

the complaint gets delayed because of the delaying tactics of
unscrupulous drawer/accused while the complainant awaits the
result of a tedious, long drawn, expensive and somewhat dawdled
legal process, it would be apposite to grant the interim relief to
the Complainant in the present case.

13. Thus, considering the rival submissions, case record and the
conduct of the accused, in the opinion of this court, the
complainant company has been able to make out a prima facie
case for the exercise of discretion u/s 143A NI Act in its favor.
Accordingly, accused is directed to make a payment of 20% of
the amount of the cheque in question, i.e.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three
Lacs only) to the complainant as interim compensation within
60 days from today . Application stands disposed off accordingly.

xxx xxx xxx”

7. By referring to the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the attempts made by the respondent to drag and delay
the proceedings before the Trial Court are palpable.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that
the legislative intent behind Section 138 of the NI Act is that the proceedings
thereunder are conducted expeditiously.
9. Thus, it is to be noted that as per the statement of objects and reasons
in the NI Act (Amendment) Bill, 2015, the purpose of legislation and the
judiciary for the amendment of 2015, is reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx

“2. As sections 138 to 142 of the said Act were found deficient
in dealing with dishonor of cheques, the Negotiable Instruments
(Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, inter
alia, amended sections 138, 141 and 142 and inserted new
section 143 to 147 in the said Act aimed at speedy disposal of
cases relating to the offence of dishonor of cheques through
their summary trial as well as making them compoundable.
Punishment provided under section 138 too was enhanced from
one year to two years. These legislative reforms are aimed at
encouraging the usage of cheque and enhancing the credibility
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 3 of 11

of the instrument so that the normal business transactions and
settlement of liabilities could be ensured.”

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. It is also to be noted that Section 143(3) of the NI Act specifically
provides that the trial under Section 138 of the NI Act shall be conducted as
expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial,
within the period contemplated therein, i.e., 06 (six) months from the date of
filing of the complaint.
11. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Indian Bank Association and Others Versus Union of India and
Others, (2014) 5 SCC 590, wherein, specific directions for speedy and
expeditious disposal of complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were
issued. It was directed therein, inter alia , that examination-in-chief, cross-
examination and re-examination of the complainant should be conducted
within 03 (three) months of assigning the case and directed criminal Courts
dealing with Section 138 of the NI Act matters to follow the prescribed
procedure for speedy and expeditious disposal. The relevant paragraph from
the said judgment is reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
23. Many of the directions given by the various High Courts, in
our view, are worthy of emulation by the criminal courts all over
the country dealing with cases under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the following directions
are being given:
23.1. The Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate
(MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138
of the Act is presented, shall scrutinise the complaint and, if
the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit
and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 4 of 11

cognizance and direct issuance of summons.
23.2. The MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic
approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly
addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from
the complainant. The court, in appropriate cases, may take the
assistance of the police or the nearby court to serve notice on
the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If
the summons is received back unserved, immediate follow-up
action be taken.
23.3. The court may indicate in the summons that if the accused
makes an application for compounding of offences at the first
hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, the court
may pass appropriate orders at the earliest.
23.4. The court should direct the accused, when he appears to
furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and
ask him to take notice under Section 251 CrPC to enable him to
enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence,
unless an application is made by the accused under Section
145(2) for recalling a witness for cross-examination.
23.5. The court concerned must ensure that examination-in-
chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the
complainant must be conducted within three months of
assigning the case. The court has option of accepting affidavits
of the witnesses instead of examining them in the court. The
witnesses to the complaint and the accused must be available
for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this
effect by the court.
24. We, therefore, direct all the criminal courts in the country
dealing with Section 138 cases to follow the abovementioned
procedures for speedy and expeditious disposal of cases falling
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The writ
petition is accordingly, disposed of, as above.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

12. It is also to be noted that the Supreme Court took cognizance of the
issue of enormous pendency of cases pertaining to Section 138 of the NI Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 5 of 11

in the matter, i.e., Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act,
1881, In re, (2021) 16 SCC 116, and issued directions intended to facilitate
the expeditious disposal of cheque dishonour cases. The relevant portions of
the said judgment are reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
3. Chapter XVII inserted in the Act, containing Sections 138 to
142, came into force on 1-4-1989. Dishonour of cheques for
insufficiency of funds was made punishable with imprisonment for
a term of one year or with fine which may extend to twice the
amount of the cheque as per Section 138. Section 139 dealt with
the presumption in favour of the holder that the cheque received
was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability. The defence which may not be allowed in a prosecution
under Section 138 of the Act is governed by Section 140. Section
141 pertains to offences by companies. Section 142 lays down
conditions under which cognizance of offences may be taken
under Section 138. Over the years, courts were inundated with
complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act which could not
be decided within a reasonable period and remained pending for
a number of years.
4. This gargantuan pendency of complaints filed under
Section 138 of the Act has had an adverse effect in disposal of
other criminal cases. There was an imminent need for
remedying the situation which was addressed by the Negotiable
Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,
2002. Sections 143 to 147 were inserted in the Act, which came
into force on 6-2-2003. Section 143 of the Act empowers the
court to try complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act
summarily, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “the Code”). Sub-section
(3) of Section 143 stipulates that an endeavour be made to
conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of
the complaint. Section 144 deals with the mode of service of
summons. Section 145 postulates that the evidence of the
complainant given by him on affidavit may be read as evidence in
any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. Bank's slip
or memo denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured is
presumed to be prima facie evidence of the fact of dishonour of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 6 of 11

the cheque, according to Section 146. Section 147 makes offences
punishable under the Act compoundable. The punishment
prescribed under the Act was enhanced from one year to two
years, along with other amendments made to Sections 138 to 142
with which we are not concerned in this case.
5. The situation has not improved as courts continue to
struggle with the humongous pendency of complaints under
Section 138 of the Act. The preliminary report submitted by the
learned Amici Curiae shows that as on 31-12-2019, the total
number of criminal cases pending was 2.31 crores, out of which
35.16 lakhs pertained to Section 138 of the Act. The reasons for
the backlog of cases, according to the learned Amici Curiae, is
that while there is a steady increase in the institution of
complaints every year, the rate of disposal does not match the rate
of institution of complaints. Delay in disposal of the complaints
under Section 138 of the Act has been due to reasons which we
shall deal with in this order.
xxx xxx xxx
24. The upshot of the above discussion leads us to the
following conclusions:
24.1. The High Courts are requested to issue practice
directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before
converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Act
from summary trial to summons trial.
24.2. Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints
under Section 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to
proceed against the accused, when such accused resides
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
24.3. For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the
Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant
shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases,
the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of
documents without insisting for examination of witnesses.
24.4. We recommend that suitable amendments be made
to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for
multiple offences under Section 138 of the Act committed
within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction
in Section 219 of the Code.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 7 of 11

24.5. The High Courts are requested to issue practice
directions to the trial courts to treat service of summons in
one complaint under Section 138 forming part of a
transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints
filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques
issued as part of the said transaction.
24.6. The judgments of this Court in Adalat
Prasad [Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] and Subramanium
Sethuraman [Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of
Maharashtra, (2004) 13 SCC 324 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 242] have
interpreted the law correctly and we reiterate that there is no
inherent power of trial courts to review or recall the issue of
summons. This does not affect the power of the trial court
under Section 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of
process in case it is brought to the court's notice that it lacks
jurisdiction to try the complaint .
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. It is also to be noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari
Versus Kishore S. Borcar and Another, (2025) 259 Comp Cas 685, has again
considered the problem of prolonged pendency of proceedings under Section
138 of the NI Act and issued directions aimed at ensuring effective and
expeditious disposal of such cases.
14. The Supreme Court observed that the object of proceedings under
Section 138 of the NI Act is not merely punitive but is substantially connected
with ensuring the efficacy and credibility of negotiable instruments and
securing payment in respect of dishonoured cheques.
15. The relevant portions of the said judgment are reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
33. Before parting with this matter, this court takes
judicial notice of the fact that despite repeated directions by
this court in various judgments including Indian Bank
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 8 of 11

Association v. Union of India [(2014) 184 Comp Cas 377
(SC); (2014) 5 SCC 590; (2014) 3 SCC (Civ) 233; (2014) 2
SCC (Cri) 652; 2014 SCC OnLine SC 351.] , Damodar S.
Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [(2010) 159 Comp Cas 1 (SC);
(2010) 5 SCC 663; (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 520; (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 1328; 2010 SCC OnLine SC 546.] and Expeditious Trial
of Cases under section 138 of NI Act, 1881, In re [(2021) 16
SCC 116; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325.] , pendency of cheque
bouncing cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, in
district courts in major metropolitan cities of India continues
to be staggeringly high. For instance, the pendency of section
138 cases as on September 1, 2025 in Delhi district courts is
6,50,283 (six lakhs fifty thousand two hundred eighty three),
Mumbai district courts is 1,17,190 (one lakh seventeen
thousand one hundred ninety) and Calcutta district courts is
2,65,985 (two lakhs sixty five thousand nine hundred eighty
five) (source : National Judicial Data Grid). This pendency is
putting an unprecedented strain on the judicial system as in
some States, cases under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act constitute nearly fifty per cent. (50 per cent.)
of the pendency in trial court (in Delhi section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act cases constitute 49.45 per cent. of
total trial court pendency).
34. In P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat P. Ltd. [(2021)
14 Comp Cas-OL 1 (SC); (2021) 6 SCC 258; (2021) 2 SCC
(Cri) 818; (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 427; 2021 SCC OnLine SC
152.] , this court while re-iterating the position of law with
regard to the nature of the offence under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, has held as under [ See page 57
of 14 Comp Cas-OL.] :
“A perusal of the judgment in S.A.L. Narayan
Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas [(1965) 57 ITR 149 (SC);
1965 SCC OnLine SC 18; (1966) 1 SCR 190; AIR 1965 SC
1818.] would show that a civil proceeding is not necessarily
a proceeding which begins with the filing of a suit and
culminates in execution of a decree. It would include a
revenue proceeding as well as a writ petition filed under
article 226 of the Constitution, if the reliefs therein are to
enforce rights of a civil nature. Interestingly, criminal
proceedings are stated to be proceedings in which the larger
interest of the State is concerned. Given these tests, it is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 9 of 11

clear that a section 138 proceeding can be said to be a ‘civil
sheep’ in a ‘criminal wolf's’ clothing, as it is the interest of
the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest
of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a
court in cheque bouncing cases, as has been seen by us in
the analysis made hereinabove of Chapter XVII of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.”
35. Admittedly, the offence under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, is quasi-criminal in character and
is compoundable (See : Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal
H. [(2010) 159 Comp Cas 1 (SC); (2010) 5 SCC 663; (2010) 2
SCC (Civ) 520; (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1328; 2010 SCC OnLine
SC 546.] ). Recently, in Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal
Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 3789 of 2025 dated August 11,
2025), a co-ordinate Bench of this court has set aside
concurrent convictions rendered by the courts below on the
ground that the proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, is essentially a civil proceeding and it is open
to the parties to enter into a voluntary compromise.
Consequently, this court is of the view that not only a
voluntary compromise can bring the proceedings under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to an end, but
the accused under the said offence are entitled to benefit
under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (See
: Chellammal v. State Represented by the Inspector of
Police [2025 SCC OnLine SC 870.] ). Observations to the
contrary by the Kerala High Court in M.V.
Nalinakshan v. M. Rameshan [2009 SCC OnLine Ker 6807;
2009 All MR (Cri) Journal 273.] are set aside.
xxx xxx xxx
38. Since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases
are still pending and interest rates have fallen in the last few
years, this court is of the view that it is time to “revisit and
tweak the guidelines”. Accordingly, the aforesaid guidelines
of compounding are modified as under :
(a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before
recording of his evidence (namely defence evidence), then
the trial court may allow compounding of the offence
without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 10 of 11

(b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque
amount post the recording of his evidence but prior to the
pronouncement of judgment by the trial court, the
magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on
payment of additional 5 per cent. of the cheque amount
with the legal services authority or such other authority as
the court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made
before the sessions court or a High Court in revision or
appeal, such court may compound the offence on the
condition that the accused pays 7.5 per cent. of the cheque
amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the cheque amount is tendered before this
court, the figure would increase to 10per cent. of the
cheque amount.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. Considering the aforesaid discussion and the concerns expressed by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of
the JMFC (NI Act)-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, Delhi, is
directed to ensure that unnecessary adjournments are not taken by the
respondent herein in CC 6130/2025, titled as GNG Stock Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Versus Geeta Monga.
17. The Trial Court is directed to endeavour to conclude the proceedings
expeditiously.
18. With the aforesaid directions, the present, along with the pending
application, is accordingly disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026/ SK


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 11 of 11