The court must consider only the allegations in the complaint and pre-summoning evidence when taking cognizance, and the accused's defense can be raised during the trial.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the code") to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Court of Sh. Vikram, MM-01, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case bearing no 4821/2018 titled as M/S Host Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Topline Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Others under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as "NI Act") along with consequential proceedings.

2. The respondent no.2/complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent no 2") filed the present complaint by alleging that the respondent no 2 gave a loan of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore thirty Lakhs only) to the petitioner no 1 which was extended in two instalments of Rs. 70,00,000/- on 3.3.2014 vide cheque drawn on Indian Overseas Bank and Rs. 60,00,000/- on 4.3.2014 vide Cheque drawn on Indian Overseas Bank. The petitioner no 1 towards discharge of part liability issued cheque bearing no 997642 dated 01.06.2018 amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lakhs only) drawn on State Bank of India, Bhikaji Cama Place Branch in favour of the respondent no.2 which was got dishonoured when presented for encashment on the ground of "Payment Stopped by Drawer" vide cheque returning memo dated 22.08.2018. The petitioners did not pay the cheque amount despite the notice dated 13.09.2018 which was replied vide reply dated 26.09.2018. Hence, the respondent no.2 filed the present complaint under section 138 of NI Act.

3. The Court of Sh. Vikram, MM-01, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide order dated 23.10.2018 took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and accordingly summoned the petitioners. The order dated 23.10.2018 verbatim reads as under:

Present: AR of complainant in person alongwith Ld. Counsel. Pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit has been tendered. I am satisfied that the present case comes within the ambit of Section 138 N.I.A. Act.

Complaint as well as relevant documents perused. I am satisfied that the present complaint has been filed within the limitation and within jurisdiction as well.

Prima facie, case seems to be made out against the accused. Cognizance of offence is taken U/s 138 N.I. Act.

Issue summons against he accused on filing PF, RC, as well as Speed Post for 30.01.2019.

If service of summons could not be effected by any of the above said means then the concerned process server is directed to affix the copy of the same on some conspicuous part of the premises wherein the person summoned ordinarily resides, in terms of Section 65 Cr.P.C.

4. The petitioners alleged that the respondent no.2 company is involved in preparing false and fabricated documents to extort money and is running extortion racket. The respondent no. 2 had filed a number of cases against the petitioner no 1 in Delhi as well as in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The police of Jammu & Kashmir lodged FIR bearing no.69/2019 in district Anantnag against the directors of the respondent no 2 amongst others which is pending for investigation. The respondent no 2 found to extort money from the eminent persons of the society by making false complaints. During the investigation, one Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, was arrested by the police of District Anantnag, Jammu & Kashmir. In status report filed before the court, it was categorically mentioned that the respondent no 2 had filed fake and false complaints before various Courts in District Anantnag and Kulgam. The authorized representative of the respondent no 2 namely Pankaj Jain is on anticipatory bail. The petitioner no 2 had preferred an writ petition (Criminal) bearing no. 2322/2019 before the High court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar seeking constitution of SIT and to monitor investigation of FIR bearing no 69/2019.

4.1. The authorized representative of the respondent no.2 had filed a similar case with respect to the cheques bearing no 997643 and