Section 138 complaint procedure limits discharge power and bars use of Section 258 CrPC in complaint cases.

In a Section 138 complaint, a Magistrate cannot discharge the accused after process has been issued, because the court has no inherent power to review or recall the order taking cognizance once that stage is crossed. Section 258 CrPC is confined to summons cases instituted otherwise than on complaint, so it cannot be imported into complaint proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only recognised exception is where the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction, in which event the proceedings must be stayed and placed before the proper court.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Magistrate has the power to discharge an accused after appearance in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to such complaints.

Analysis: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the procedural scheme governing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and held that the Trial Court cannot be vested with an inherent power to review or recall the order issuing process once cognizance has been taken. It further held that Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which applies to summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, cannot be imported into complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The only limited exception recognised was where the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction, in which case the proceedings must be stayed and placed before the proper court.

Conclusion: The Magistrate has no power to discharge the accused after process has been issued in a Section 138 complaint, and Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to such proceedings.

---