127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ASHOK KUMAR STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 BNSS, seeking quashing of criminal complaint filed under Section with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1887 as date (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NI Act’) dated No.NACT/317/2023 (Annexure P Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) as well dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Judicial (Mohali), and all other subsequent 2. Learned c that a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of filed against the petitioner on the ground of No.001352 dated issued in favour of the of the liability and the petitioner was subsequently summoned by the learned trial Court. She further contends that the impugned summoning order dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ASHOK KUMAR V/S PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 seeking quashing of criminal complaint filed under Section with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1887 as date (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NI Act’) dated /2023 (Annexure P-1), filed befor Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) as well dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of filed against the petitioner on the ground of dishonouring of cheque bearing dated 15.02.2023 amounting to Rs.5.0 issued in favour of the complainant/respondent by the petitioner in discharge and the petitioner was subsequently summoned by the learned Court. She further contends that the impugned summoning order dated 6.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28471-2025 Date of decision: 26.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of seeking quashing of criminal complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1887 as amended upto date (hereinafter to be referred as ‘NI Act’) dated 17.04.2023 bearing 1), filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) as well as the summoning order Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar proceedings arising therefrom. ounsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act was dishonouring of cheque bearing amounting to Rs.5.00 lacs drawn on HDFC Bank, complainant/respondent by the petitioner in discharge and the petitioner was subsequently summoned by the learned Court. She further contends that the impugned summoning order dated 2) is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28471 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) has relied judgment of this Court in M/s. Alchemist Hospitals Limited held that the mandate of Section 202 Cr.P.C., postpone the issuance of process and direct an investigation, is territorial jurisdiction of the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dishonor of the cheque does not constitute a valid basis for the under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI A submits that the learned trial Court issued summons investigating the discrepancies, leading to a wrongful proceedings. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after the record of the case with her able assistance, the present decided in limine judicial time of the Court and also the 5. A perusal of the impugned (Annexure P-2), passed by learned trial Court would reveal observation made by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, (Mohali) is contrary to the settled law as per the judgment Apex Health Care Private Limited’s case observation has been made: “The offence U/s 138 of N.I Act is non Section 2(1) Cr.P.C in which police office has got no authority to arrest without warrants. By necessary implication from the language 28471-2025 2 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) has relied judgment of this Court in Apex Health Care Private Limited and others vs M/s. Alchemist Hospitals Limited, passed in CRM held that the mandate of Section 202 Cr.P.C., which requires the Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process and either conduct an inquiry himself or direct an investigation, is mandatory when the accused is jurisdiction of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dishonor of the cheque does not constitute a valid basis for the under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI A submits that the learned trial Court issued summons investigating the discrepancies, leading to a wrongful Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after ecord of the case with her able assistance, the present in limine without issuing notice to the judicial time of the Court and also the litigation costs of the respondent. A perusal of the impugned summoning order dated 2), passed by learned trial Court would reveal observation made by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, (Mohali) is contrary to the settled law as per the judgment ealth Care Private Limited’s case (supra) observation has been made:- “The offence U/s 138 of N.I Act is non Section 2(1) Cr.P.C in which police office has got no authority to arrest without warrants. By necessary implication from the language Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) has relied upon the Apex Health Care Private Limited and others vs CRM-M No.14352 of 2009, and which requires the Magistrate to either conduct an inquiry himself or mandatory when the accused is residing outside the Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dishonor of the cheque does not constitute a valid basis for the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act. Additionally, she submits that the learned trial Court issued summons without properly investigating the discrepancies, leading to a wrongful initiation of legal Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing ecord of the case with her able assistance, the present petition is being without issuing notice to the respondent in order to save litigation costs of the respondent. summoning order dated 06.03.2025 2), passed by learned trial Court would reveal that the observation made by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) is contrary to the settled law as per the judgment of this Court in (supra), wherein the following “The offence U/s 138 of N.I Act is non-cognizable offence as per Section 2(1) Cr.P.C in which police office has got no authority to arrest without warrants. By necessary implication from the language MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28471 used mean by amended Section 202 Cr.P.C, it is apparent provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C enabling a Magistrate to hold an inquiry and postponed the issuance of process is not applicable to the proceeding under U/s 138 of N.I Act”. 6. Further from the perusal of the paper drill of Section 225 BNSS (erstwhile Section 202 Cr.P.C.) was not before issuance of process. Hence, the following question consideration of this Court: “Is the drill of Section 225 of BNSS mandatory to be followed in cases pert 7. A study of Section 225 of BNSS is called for, which is reproduced below: Section 225. Postponement of issue of process. (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 212, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises hisjurisdiction, postpone the issue o either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding made, (2) In an inquiry under sub thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: 28471-2025 3 used mean by amended Section 202 Cr.P.C, it is apparent provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C enabling a Magistrate to hold an inquiry and postponed the issuance of process is not applicable to the proceeding under U/s 138 of N.I Act”. Further from the perusal of the paper drill of Section 225 BNSS (erstwhile Section 202 Cr.P.C.) was not before issuance of process. Hence, the following question consideration of this Court:- “Is the drill of Section 225 of BNSS mandatory to be followed in cases pertaining to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?” A study of Section 225 of BNSS is called for, which is reproduced below: Section 225. Postponement of issue of process. (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 212, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises hisjurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,— (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 223. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: used mean by amended Section 202 Cr.P.C, it is apparent that the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C enabling a Magistrate to hold an inquiry and postponed the issuance of process is not applicable to the proceeding under U/s 138 of N.I Act”. Further from the perusal of the paper-book, it transpires that the drill of Section 225 BNSS (erstwhile Section 202 Cr.P.C.) was not followed before issuance of process. Hence, the following question props up for the “Is the drill of Section 225 of BNSS mandatory to be followed in cases aining to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?” A study of Section 225 of BNSS is called for, which is Section 225. Postponement of issue of process.— (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 212, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises f process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless omplainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 223. section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28471 Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate tha complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub being a police offi powers conferred by this Sanhita on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant. 8. Time and again, the Constitutional Courts have reiterated drill of Section 202 Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 of BNSS) is nature. A two Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemant Madhukar 2017(3) SCC 528 has held as follows: “28. No doubt, the argument was raised for the first time by A Notwithstanding the same, being a pure legal issue which could be tested on the basis of admitted facts on record, the High Court could have considered thi law that a pure legal issue can be raised at any stage of proceedings, more so, when it goes to the jurisdiction of the matter (See : National Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad; [(2011 SCC 695). 29. the arguments founded on Section 202 of Cr.P.C., even he had submitted that in case this Court is satisfied that mandatory requirement of Section 202 is not fulfilled by the learne before issuing the process, this Court can direct the Magistrate to do so. Mr. Bhatt, for this purpose, referred to the judgment in the case of the National Bank of Oman. 30. For the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) 24 th November, 2009 in respect of A Magistrate to take up the 28471-2025 4 Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate tha complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Sanhita on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant. Time and again, the Constitutional Courts have reiterated tion 202 Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 of BNSS) is nature. A two Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemant Madhukar 2017(3) SCC 528, speaking has held as follows: “28. No doubt, the argument predicated on Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was raised for the first time by A Notwithstanding the same, being a pure legal issue which could be tested on the basis of admitted facts on record, the High Court could have considered this argument on merits. It is a settled proposition of law that a pure legal issue can be raised at any stage of proceedings, more so, when it goes to the jurisdiction of the matter (See : National Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad; [(2011 SCC 695). We may like to record that though Mr. Bhatt had refuted the arguments founded on Section 202 of Cr.P.C., even he had submitted that in case this Court is satisfied that mandatory requirement of Section 202 is not fulfilled by the learne before issuing the process, this Court can direct the Magistrate to do so. Mr. Bhatt, for this purpose, referred to the judgment in the case of the National Bank of Oman. 30. For the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9318 of 2012 is allowed thereby quashing the notice dated 24 th November, 2009 in respect of A Magistrate to take up the Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine section (1) is made by a person not cer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Sanhita on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.” Time and again, the Constitutional Courts have reiterated that the tion 202 Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 of BNSS) is mandatory in nature. A two Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhijit Pawar vs. , speaking through Justice A.K. Sikri predicated on Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was raised for the first time by A-1 before the High Court. Notwithstanding the same, being a pure legal issue which could be tested on the basis of admitted facts on record, the High Court could s argument on merits. It is a settled proposition of law that a pure legal issue can be raised at any stage of proceedings, more so, when it goes to the jurisdiction of the matter (See : National Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad; [(2011) 12 We may like to record that though Mr. Bhatt had refuted the arguments founded on Section 202 of Cr.P.C., even he had submitted that in case this Court is satisfied that mandatory requirement of Section 202 is not fulfilled by the learned Magistrate before issuing the process, this Court can direct the Magistrate to do so. Mr. Bhatt, for this purpose, referred to the judgment in the case of 30. For the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No. 9318 of 2012 is allowed thereby quashing the notice dated 24 th November, 2009 in respect of A-1 with direction to the learned MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28471 matter afresh qua A law, after following the proc 9. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Barakara Abdul Aziz and another 2013(2) SCC 488 Jasminder Kaur 10. This issue has also been dealt with a Constitution bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court NI Act 1881 in Suo Moto Writ Peition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 issue and concluded as follows: “10. Section 202 of the Code confers jurisdiction on the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry for the purpose of deciding whether sufficient grounds justifying the issue of process are made out. The amendment to Sectio 2005, made it mandatory for the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry before issue of process, in a case where the accused resides beyond the area of jurisdiction of the court. (See: Najima Mamtaj & Ors, Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Anr. and Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Ors. divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts relating to the applicability of Section 202 in respect of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. Certain cases under Section 138 have been decided by the High Courts upholding the v the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry, as provided in Section 202 of the Code, before issuance of process in complaints filed under Section 138. Contrary views have been expressed in some other cases. It has been held that merel jurisdiction of the court, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process in each and every case. Further, it has also been held that not conducting inquiry under Section 202 of 28471-2025 5 matter afresh qua A-1 and pass necessary orders as are permissible in law, after following the procedure contained in Section 202, Cr.P.C.” Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another 2013(2) SCC 488 Jasminder Kaur vs. Raj Karan Singh Boparai CRM This issue has also been dealt with a Constitution bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act 1881 in Suo Moto Writ Peition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 issue and concluded as follows: “10. Section 202 of the Code confers jurisdiction on the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry for the purpose of deciding whether sufficient grounds justifying the issue of process are made out. The amendment to Section 202 of the Code with effect from 23.06.2006, vide Act 25 of 2005, made it mandatory for the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry before issue of process, in a case where the accused resides beyond the area of jurisdiction of the court. (See: Najima Mamtaj & Ors, Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Anr. and Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Ors. divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts relating to the applicability of Section 202 in respect of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. Certain cases under Section 138 have been decided by the High Courts upholding the v the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry, as provided in Section 202 of the Code, before issuance of process in complaints filed under Section 138. Contrary views have been expressed in some other cases. It has been held that merely because the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the court, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process in each and every case. Further, it has also been held that not conducting inquiry under Section 202 of 1 and pass necessary orders as are permissible in edure contained in Section 202, Cr.P.C.” Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another 2013(2) SCC 488 and this Court in Dr. vs. Raj Karan Singh Boparai CRM-M-20260-2008. This issue has also been dealt with a Constitution bench of the In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act 1881 in Suo Moto Writ Peition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020, analysed the said “10. Section 202 of the Code confers jurisdiction on the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry for the purpose of deciding whether sufficient grounds justifying the issue of process are made out. The amendment n 202 of the Code with effect from 23.06.2006, vide Act 25 of 2005, made it mandatory for the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry before issue of process, in a case where the accused resides beyond the area of jurisdiction of the court. (See: Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. v. Najima Mamtaj & Ors, Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Anr. and Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Ors.). There has been a divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts relating to the applicability of Section 202 in respect of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. Certain cases under Section 138 have been decided by the High Courts upholding the view that it is mandatory for the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry, as provided in Section 202 of the Code, before issuance of process in complaints filed under Section 138. Contrary views have been expressed in some other cases. It has y because the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the court, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process in each and every case. Further, it has also been held that not conducting inquiry under Section 202 of MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28471 the satisfaction can be obtained from materials available on record. 11. Court in was a discussion about the requirement of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code in relation to complaints filed under Section 138 but the question of law was left open. In view of the judgments of this Court in Vijay Dhanuka (supra), Abhijit Pawar (supra) Corporation (supra), issuance of summons to the accused residing outside the jurisdiction of the court cannot be dispensed with. The learned Amici Curiae recommended that the Magistrate should come holding an inquiry that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. We are in agreement with the learned Amici (emphasis added) 11. Furthermore, the following directions were issued in In re: Expeditious Trial of “24. The upshot of the above discussion leads us to the following conclusions: 28471-2025 6 the Code would not vitiate the issuance of process, if requisite satisfaction can be obtained from materials available on record. The learned Amici Curiae referred to a judgment of this Court in K.S. Joseph v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd & Anr. was a discussion about the requirement of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code in relation to complaints filed under Section 138 but the question of law was left open. In view of the judgments of this Court in Vijay Dhanuka (supra), Abhijit Pawar (supra) Corporation (supra), the inquiry to be held by the Magistrate before issuance of summons to the accused residing outside the jurisdiction of the court cannot be dispensed with. The learned Amici Curiae recommended that the Magistrate should come holding an inquiry that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. We are in agreement with the learned Amici (emphasis added) Furthermore, the following directions were issued in In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act 1881(supra): “24. The upshot of the above discussion leads us to the following conclusions: 1) The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Act from summary trial to summons trial. 2) Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints under Section 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 3) For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry documents without insisting for examination of witnesses. 4) We recommend that suitable amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences under Section 138 of the Act committed within a perio Code would not vitiate the issuance of process, if requisite satisfaction can be obtained from materials available on record. The learned Amici Curiae referred to a judgment of this K.S. Joseph v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd & Anr. where there was a discussion about the requirement of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code in relation to complaints filed under Section 138 but the question of law was left open. In view of the judgments of this Court in Vijay Dhanuka (supra), Abhijit Pawar (supra) and Birla the inquiry to be held by the Magistrate before issuance of summons to the accused residing outside the jurisdiction of the court cannot be dispensed with. The learned Amici Curiae recommended that the Magistrate should come to a conclusion after holding an inquiry that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. We are in agreement with the learned Amici.” Furthermore, the following directions were issued in In re: Cases under Section 138 NI Act 1881(supra): “24. The upshot of the above discussion leads us to the following 1) The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of aints under Section 138 of the Act from summary trial to 2) Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints under Section 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides territorial jurisdiction of the court. 3) For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses. 4) We recommend that suitable amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences under Section 138 of the Act committed within a period of 12 MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28471 12. The intention behind Section 202 Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 BNSS) is to ensure that sufficient grounds exist in order to proceed accused in a private complaint. As such, it is pertinent that Court passes an order indicating substantial compliance 28471-2025 7 months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the Code. 5) The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one complaint under Section 138 forming part of a transaction, as d service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said transaction. 6) Judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) have interpreted the correctly and we reiterate that there is no inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the issue of summons. This does not affect the power of the Trial Court under Section 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is to the court’s notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint. 7) Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act and findings to the contrary in Meters and Instruments (supra) do conclusively deal with this aspect, amendment to the Act empowering the Trial Courts to reconsider/recall summons in respect of complaints under Section 138 shall be considered by the Committee constituted by an order of this Court dated 10.03.2021. 8) All other points, which have been raised by the Amici Curiae in their preliminary report and written submissions and not considered herein, shall be the subject matter of deliberation by the aforementioned Committee. Any other issue relating to expeditious disposal of complaints under Section 138 of the Act shall also be considered by the Committee.” (emphasis added) The intention behind Section 202 Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 BNSS) is to ensure that sufficient grounds exist in order to proceed accused in a private complaint. As such, it is pertinent that Court passes an order indicating substantial compliance months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the 5) The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one complaint under Section 138 forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said 6) Judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) have interpreted the law correctly and we reiterate that there is no inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the issue of summons. This does not affect the power of the Trial Court under Section 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the court’s notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the 7) Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act and findings to the contrary in Meters and Instruments (supra) do not lay down correct law. To conclusively deal with this aspect, amendment to the Act empowering the Trial Courts to reconsider/recall summons in respect of complaints under Section 138 shall be considered by the Committee constituted by an order of this Court dated 8) All other points, which have been raised by the Amici Curiae in their preliminary report and written submissions and not considered herein, shall be the subject matter of deliberation by the aforementioned Committee. Any other issue relating to ous disposal of complaints under Section 138 of the Act shall also be considered by the Committee.” The intention behind Section 202 Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 of BNSS) is to ensure that sufficient grounds exist in order to proceed against an accused in a private complaint. As such, it is pertinent that the concerned Court passes an order indicating substantial compliance of the aforementioned MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-28471 provision, in view of the directions issued in under Section 138 NI Act 1881(supra). 13. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, the present is partly allowed and the summoning order dated 06.03.2025 learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) matter is remanded back to concerned Court to accordance with law, by taking recourse to May 26, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 28471-2025 8 provision, in view of the directions issued in In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases ion 138 NI Act 1881(supra). In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, the present is partly allowed and the summoning order dated 06.03.2025 learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) remanded back to concerned Court to accordance with law, by taking recourse to Section 225 of BNSS, 2023. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, the present petition is partly allowed and the summoning order dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) is set-aside. The remanded back to concerned Court to consider the matter afresh in Section 225 of BNSS, 2023. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment