Recall of summoning order in cheque dishonour complaints remains open where no offence is disclosed, and Supreme Court law binds subordinate courts.

A summoning order in a Section 138 complaint is treated as an interim order, not a judgment, and a Magistrate may recall the process or drop proceedings if the complaint on its face does not disclose an offence. The fact that summons have already been issued does not by itself bar reconsideration of maintainability. The Supreme Court's decision in K. M. Mathews remains binding under Article 141 on subordinate courts until it is reversed or reviewed, and a contrary High Court view cannot displace it. The impugned order was set aside and the applications were directed to be decided on merits in accordance with the governing Supreme Court precedent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a subordinate criminal court could refuse to consider an application for recall of the summoning order in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that such order was not recallable. (ii) Whether the law declared by the Supreme Court in K. M. Mathews bound the subordinate court notwithstanding a contrary view of the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether a subordinate criminal court could refuse to consider an application for recall of the summoning order in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that such order was not recallable.

Analysis: The summoning order in a complaint case is an interim order and not a judgment. Where the complaint on its face does not disclose an offence against the accused, the Magistrate or court may, on reconsideration, drop the proceedings or recall the process. The fact that summons have already been issued does not by itself bar such consideration.

Conclusion: The objection that the application for recall or dropping of proceedings was not maintainable was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the law declared by the Supreme Court in K. M. Mathews bound the subordinate court notwithstanding a contrary view of the High Court.

Analysis: The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. A reference made in another case for reconsideration by a larger Bench does not dilute or suspend the binding force of the existing Supreme Court decision unless it is reversed or reviewed. Judicial discipline required adherence to the Supreme Court ruling, not to a contrary High Court view.

Conclusion: The subordinate court was bound to follow the Supreme Court decision and not the contrary High Court view.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the petitions were allowed, with a direction that the applications be decided on merits in accordance with the governing Supreme Court precedent.

Ratio Decidendi: A summoning order in a complaint case is an interlocutory order that may be recalled or varied if the complaint does not disclose an offence, and all subordinate courts are bound under Article 141 to follow the Supreme Court's declared law until it is reversed or reviewed.

---