Cheque dishonour procedure: summary trial, mandatory section 202 inquiry, joint trial for connected complaints, and no recall of summons.

Section 138 cheque-dishonour complaints should ordinarily proceed as summary trials, and conversion to a summons trial requires recorded reasons where the Magistrate finds summary procedure unsuitable or anticipates a sentence above one year. Where the accused resides outside territorial jurisdiction, inquiry under section 202 CrPC is mandatory, and complainant evidence may be taken on affidavit. Connected complaints arising from the same transaction may be dealt with through joint trial under section 220 and deemed service arrangements. Subordinate criminal courts have no inherent power to review or recall summons, section 258 CrPC does not apply to section 138 complaints, and matters lacking territorial jurisdiction should be stayed and placed before the competent Magistrate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should ordinarily proceed as summary trials and whether conversion into summons trials requires recorded reasons; (ii) Whether inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory where the accused resides outside the court's territorial jurisdiction and whether witnesses may be examined on affidavit; (iii) Whether multiple complaints arising from cheques issued in the same transaction may be managed through a single trial or deemed service of summons; (iv) Whether the Trial Court has inherent power to review or recall summons and whether section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to section 138 complaints; (v) Whether complaints lacking territorial jurisdiction can be stayed and sent to the competent Magistrate.

Issue (i): Whether complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should ordinarily proceed as summary trials and whether conversion into summons trials requires recorded reasons

Analysis: Section 143 was inserted to secure expeditious disposal of cheque dishonour complaints by applying summary trial procedure so far as may be. Conversion to summons trial is permissible only when the Magistrate is of the opinion that a sentence exceeding one year may be required or that summary trial is undesirable, and the second proviso requires reasons to be recorded. Mechanical conversion defeats the statutory object.

Conclusion: The Magistrate must record reasons before converting a summary trial into a summons trial, and the High Courts were requested to issue practice directions accordingly.

Issue (ii): Whether inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory where the accused resides outside the court's territorial jurisdiction and whether witnesses may be examined on affidavit

Analysis: Where the accused resides beyond territorial jurisdiction, inquiry under section 202 is required before issuance of process. Reading section 202 with section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the evidence of witnesses for the complainant may also be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate may confine the inquiry to documents and need not insist on oral examination of witnesses.

Conclusion: Inquiry under section 202 is mandatory in such cases, and witness evidence on affidavit is permissible.

Issue (iii): Whether multiple complaints arising from cheques issued in the same transaction may be managed through a single trial or deemed service of summons

Analysis: Section 220 permits joint trial of offences forming part of the same transaction, while section 219 limits trial for offences of the same kind within twelve months. The Court found no ambiguity in applying section 220 to connected cheque dishonour cases arising from the same transaction. To reduce delay, service of summons in one complaint relating to the transaction can serve as deemed service in the other connected complaints before the same court, and an amendment was recommended to permit one trial beyond the restriction in section 219.

Conclusion: Connected complaints from the same transaction may be managed through joint consideration under section 220, deemed service may be treated as applicable across such complaints, and legislative amendment was recommended for multiple offences within twelve months.

Issue (iv): Whether the Trial Court has inherent power to review or recall summons and whether section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to section 138 complaints

Analysis: The Court reaffirmed that subordinate criminal courts have no inherent power to review or recall an order issuing process. Section 258 applies only to summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint and therefore cannot govern complaints under section 138. The contrary view in Meters and Instruments was disapproved on this point. However, section 322 remains available where the court is informed that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint.

Conclusion: There is no inherent power in the Trial Court to review or recall summons, section 258 does not apply to section 138 complaints, and section 322 may be invoked where jurisdiction is lacking.

Issue (v): Whether complaints lacking territorial jurisdiction can be stayed and sent to the competent Magistrate

Analysis: Where the Trial Court is informed that it has no jurisdiction to try the complaint, proceedings should be stayed and the matter submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or other competent Magistrate having jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Such complaints must be stayed and placed before the competent Magistrate.

Final Conclusion: The order laid down binding procedural directions to accelerate disposal of section 138 prosecutions, while leaving several related reform issues for further consideration by the Committee and the larger bench hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be construed to promote speedy disposal by summary procedure, section 202 inquiry is mandatory where the accused resides outside jurisdiction, and subordinate criminal courts cannot assume inherent power to review or recall summons in section 138 complaints.

---