Account Frozen dishonour can still attract Section 138, and process cannot be recalled once cognizance is taken.

Once cognizance is taken and process is issued, a magistrate cannot recall that order at the accused's request in the absence of statutory power, so an application to drop proceedings on that basis was rightly rejected. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains maintainable where the cheque is returned unpaid with the endorsement "Account Frozen", because dishonour is not confined to the exact statutory wording and such an endorsement may still indicate an impediment to encashment within the provision. The revisional order was set aside, the trial court's order restored, and the matter remitted for trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional court was justified in holding that the magistrate had wrongly dismissed the application for dropping of proceedings after cognizance and issuance of process. (ii) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable where the cheque is dishonoured with the endorsement "Account Frozen".

Issue (i): Whether the revisional court was justified in holding that the magistrate had wrongly dismissed the application for dropping of proceedings after cognizance and issuance of process.

Analysis: Once cognizance is taken and process is issued, the magistrate has no power to review or recall that order at the behest of the accused in the absence of any enabling provision. The remedy against an allegedly bad order of summoning lies elsewhere, and the magistrate could not be said to have wrongly dismissed the application for dropping the proceedings on the ground that such recall was unavailable.

Conclusion: The revisional court was not right in holding that the trial court had wrongly dismissed the application for dropping of proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable where the cheque is dishonoured with the endorsement "Account Frozen".

Analysis: The expression in Section 138 is not to be read narrowly so as to exclude every dishonour not expressed in the exact statutory language. Dishonour on account of "Account Frozen" can fall within the ambit of Section 138 because the provision covers situations where dishonour reflects non-availability of funds or an equivalent impediment to encashment. At the threshold stage, the complaint cannot be stifled without a full trial when the factual circumstances as to freezing of the account and the drawer's knowledge or liability remain in issue.

Conclusion: A complaint under Section 138 is maintainable even when the cheque is returned unpaid with the endorsement "Account Frozen".

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside, the trial court's order was restored, and the matter was sent back for trial in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonoured because the account is frozen may still attract Section 138, and a prosecution cannot be quashed at the threshold where the factual basis for liability requires trial; separately, a magistrate cannot recall process once cognizance has been taken in the absence of statutory power.

---