Writ jurisdiction and discharge limits in cheque dishonour cases upheld; revisional remedy must be pursued first.

Writ jurisdiction was held generally unavailable to challenge orders issuing process, rejecting jurisdictional objections, rejecting discharge, refusing ancillary evidentiary applications, or granting interim compensation in Section 138 NI Act proceedings where the statutory revisional remedy was not pursued. Discharge under Section 239 CrPC was treated as inapplicable to summary complaints under the NI Act, and the trial court's rejection of such applications was upheld. Applications for bank statements, signature comparison, and clubbing were treated as premature or otherwise not maintainable at that stage, while interim compensation under Section 143-A was found to be reasoned and free from perversity. The petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the orders issuing process, rejecting jurisdictional objections, rejecting discharge applications, rejecting applications for production of bank statements and signature verification, rejecting clubbing applications, and granting interim compensation were maintainable. (ii) Whether the discharge applications under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were maintainable in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (iii) Whether the trial court rightly rejected the ancillary applications for production of bank statements, comparison of signatures, clubbing of cases, and interim compensation.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the orders issuing process, rejecting jurisdictional objections, rejecting discharge applications, rejecting applications for production of bank statements and signature verification, rejecting clubbing applications, and granting interim compensation were maintainable.

Analysis: The orders issuing process were challenged without first availing the statutory revisional remedy. The objections based on jurisdiction were also not carried in revision. The Court treated the orders rejecting the jurisdictional challenge as not interlocutory, but still held that the petitions were not maintainable when the available revisional route was not pursued. The challenge to the orders granting interim compensation was also found unsustainable in writ jurisdiction in the absence of recourse to revision.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held to be not maintainable against these orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the discharge applications under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were maintainable in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 proceed as summary cases, and discharge in the manner contemplated by Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to be unavailable. The Trial Court had therefore correctly rejected the discharge applications as not maintainable.

Conclusion: The discharge applications were held to be not maintainable and their rejection was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the trial court rightly rejected the ancillary applications for production of bank statements, comparison of signatures, clubbing of cases, and interim compensation.

Analysis: The applications for production of bank statements and signature comparison were treated as premature and evidentiary in nature, with liberty left to raise such matters at the proper stage and with the Court retaining power to compare signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The clubbing application was rejected because no charge had been framed in the summary cases and the requested relief was not maintainable before the Trial Court. The orders granting interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were found to be reasoned and without perversity.

Conclusion: The rejection of the ancillary applications and the grant of interim compensation were upheld.

Final Conclusion: No ground for interference was made out in any of the impugned orders, and the writ petitions were dismissed with each party left to bear its own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory revisional remedy is available and not pursued, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to challenge orders issuing process, jurisdictional rulings, or interim compensation orders in Section 138 proceedings; discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not available in summary complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---