Prima facie satisfaction and application of mind: summoning order under negotiable instruments law upheld; stay vacated.

Whether a magistrate's summoning order under the Negotiable Instruments Act was vitiated for being non-speaking: the court applied the principle that a magistrate must exhibit application of mind and be supported by complaint and preliminary evidence at the pre-summoning stage, and found the order sustainable on the basis of complaint, affidavit, cheque, dishonour memo and notice; summoning order upheld. Whether refusal to grant stay of proceedings was infirm: the court held the interlocutory refusal was reasoned and fact-dependent and declined to interfere; stay vacated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the summoning order dated 23.08.2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is liable to be quashed for being non speaking or mechanically passed; (ii) Whether the order dated 07.06.2023 rejecting the plea for stay of proceedings should be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is vitiated for lack of reasons or mechanical issuance against a non drawer.

Analysis: The legal framework requires that at the pre summoning stage the Magistrate satisfy himself there is sufficient ground for proceeding by considering the complaint, affidavit and preliminary evidence (Sections 190, 202, 203, 204 CrPC; principles in Pepsi Foods Ltd., Mehmood Ul Rehman, Sunil Todi and subsequent authorities). A Magistrate need not record detailed reasons but the order must indicate application of mind and a prima facie case. The matter involved a cheque dated 05.06.2018 dishonoured on 08.06.2018; the cheque was drawn on a director's personal account but was issued in the context of a personal guarantee deed and claimed to discharge composite liability of the company. The corporate insolvency resolution process and liquidation occurred after issuance and dishonour of the cheque; potential effect of insolvency provisions (Sections 33(5) and 35(1)(k) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) on liability is a trial stage question. The Magistrate's order, though not elaborate, was supported by complaint, affidavit, original cheque, dishonour memo and statutory notice, and the High Court examined those materials before declining interference.

Conclusion: The summoning order dated 23.08.2018 is not quashed; the petition challenging that order is dismissed. This conclusion is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the order dated 07.06.2023 refusing stay of proceedings should be set aside.

Analysis: The order refusing stay was a reasoned interlocutory decision addressing stay sought in the criminal proceedings. The dispute about stay and related conduct of accused (including issuance of warrants and non appearance) involves factual and trial stage considerations. Given that the High Court found no infirmity warranting interference and that the Magistrate's order on stay was reasoned, the interlocutory order was not disturbed.

Conclusion: The order dated 07.06.2023 rejecting the plea for stay is not set aside; the stay previously granted by the High Court is vacated. This conclusion is against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order and to the rejection of stay is dismissed; the criminal proceedings shall continue against the accused as per the Magistrate's orders and the earlier interim stay is vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate's summoning order under Sections 190/204 CrPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 need not contain detailed reasons, but must reflect application of mind and be supportable on the complaint and preliminary evidence; where the High Court, on perusal of complaint and core documents, finds materials that sustain prima facie satisfaction, interference under Section 482 CrPC is not warranted.

---