Cheque dishonour complaints: subsequent payment after notice does not defeat maintainability, and process may issue on affidavit evidence.

In a cheque dishonour complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, subsequent payment made after dishonour and after issuance of the statutory demand notice did not extinguish the alleged liability for maintainability purposes, so the complaint remained prima facie maintainable. In such complaints, the Magistrate was not required to follow the ordinary Section 202(2) procedure of examining witnesses on oath in the same manner as other complaints; affidavit evidence and accompanying documents could suffice where sufficient grounds to proceed were found. The revisional challenge therefore failed on maintainability and process-issuance objections, though the warrant of arrest was set aside and the complaint was directed to continue in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could proceed when the cheque amount was paid after the statutory notice period; (ii) Whether the order issuing process was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could proceed when the cheque amount was paid after the statutory notice period.

Analysis: The payment relied upon by the petitioner was made after the cheque was dishonoured and after issuance of the demand notice. Since the payment was not made within the statutory notice period, the legal liability alleged in the complaint was not extinguished for the purpose of examining maintainability. The complaint therefore remained prima facie maintainable on the facts recorded.

Conclusion: The complaint under Section 138 was maintainable, and the plea based on subsequent payment did not defeat the proceeding.

Issue (ii): Whether the order issuing process was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: In complaints under Section 138, the requirement of examining witnesses on oath under Section 202(2) is not compulsory in the manner applicable to ordinary complaints. Where the Magistrate examines the complainant on affidavit and considers the accompanying documents, process may validly be issued if sufficient grounds for proceeding are found. The impugned order showed such consideration and therefore did not suffer from illegality on this ground.

Conclusion: There was no infirmity in the order issuing process on the ground of Section 202 compliance.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge succeeded only to the extent of the warrant of arrest, which was set aside, while the complaint was directed to continue in accordance with law with an effort toward mediation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour case, subsequent payment after the statutory notice period does not by itself defeat maintainability, and in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, process may be issued on affidavit evidence and documents without insisting on the ordinary Section 202(2) procedure.

---