Pre-cognizance hearing in cheque dishonour cases rejected; written objections did not justify setting aside the cognizance order.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused was not treated as entitled to a pre-cognizance hearing on the basis of a written objection, because the proceedings are meant to move within the statutory scheme of speedy disposal. The Court held that the materials relied on by the accused were matters to be raised at trial and declined to interfere with the cognizance order. The challenge founded on Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was also not accepted on the facts, and the revision against the cognizance order was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused was entitled to be heard before cognizance was taken and whether the cognizance order ought to be set aside on the basis of the written objection filed by the accused.

Analysis: The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are intended to follow the statutory scheme of speedy disposal, and the earlier objection of the accused could not be used to require a pre-cognizance hearing in the manner suggested. The materials relied upon by the accused were held to be matters that could be pressed during trial, and the Court declined to interfere with the cognizance order. The challenge based on Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was not accepted as a ground to invalidate the impugned order in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cognizance order failed, and the revision was dismissed against the petitioner.

---