Magistrate cannot recall summons or discharge accused in a cheque dishonour complaint after process is issued.

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once cognizance is taken and summons are issued, the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused by recalling or reviewing the summons on a maintainability objection. The proceeding must continue in accordance with Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Section 258 CrPC does not apply to such complaints. The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to drop the case after process was issued, making the discharge order unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after issuance of summons in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Magistrate could discharge the accused on an application questioning the maintainability of the proceeding.

Analysis: In a summons case arising from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once cognizance is taken and process is issued, the proceeding must ordinarily move in accordance with Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate has no inherent power to review or recall the summons merely on reconsideration of the complaint materials. The decision to drop the proceeding after process is not available in the manner adopted by the trial court, and the earlier Constitution Bench exposition makes it clear that Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to such complaints. The trial court therefore acted without jurisdiction in discharging the accused on the maintainability objection.

Conclusion: The discharge order was unsustainable and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: After summons are issued in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused by recalling or reviewing the summons; the case must proceed in accordance with Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---