Supreme Court: Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to recall summons under Section 141

The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to recall the summons and found the allegations in the complaint were adequate to summon the accused under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstated the summons against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and allowed the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to recall summons.
2. Sufficiency of allegations in the complaint to summon the accused.
3. Application of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Detailed Analysis

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to Recall Summons
The Supreme Court addressed whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to recall the order issuing summons. The Court referred to the precedent set in *Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Others* [(2004) 7 SCC 338], which held that a Magistrate does not have inherent jurisdiction to recall an order of issuance of process. The Court reiterated that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for review or interference at interlocutory stages, thereby affirming that the Magistrate acted beyond his jurisdiction in recalling the summons.

2. Sufficiency of Allegations in the Complaint to Summon the Accused
The Supreme Court evaluated whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to summon Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The High Court had dismissed the applications, noting that the complaint contained only omnibus allegations without specific averments regarding the involvement of the accused in the conduct of the business or the issuance of the cheque. The Supreme Court, however, found that the complaint had made specific allegations that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were involved in meetings and negotiations related to the payments, thus satisfying the requirements of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Application of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The Court extensively discussed the applicability of Section 141, which deals with offenses by companies. It cited the precedent in *S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr.* [(2005) 8 SCC 89], which necessitates specific averments in the complaint that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. The Supreme Court found that the complaint did indeed contain such averments, stating that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were actively involved in the business dealings and negotiations, thereby making them liable under Section 141.

The Court also referred to *Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.* [2007 (2) SCALE 36], which emphasized that a complaint must specifically state how the accused was responsible for the conduct of the business. The Supreme Court concluded that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to establish a prima facie case against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as they were involved in the meetings and issuance of cheques.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, holding that the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to recall the summons and that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to summon the accused under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the summons against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

---