Summary
Issuing directions to expedite cheque-dishonour complaints, the Court required reasoned conversion from summary trial and mandatory inquiry for accused outside territorial jurisdiction, with affidavits and document-based inquiry permitted. It reaffirmed that trial courts lack inherent power to recall summons or discharge such complaints under Section 258 CrPC, preserving jurisdictional referral under Section 322. Wider joinder and recall powers were left for possible legislative change and committee examination.
Issues
- How summary-trial conversion and out-of-jurisdiction process should be handled in Section 138 complaints.
- Whether trial courts could recall summons or discharge complaints using inherent powers or Section 258 CrPC.
- How related complaints, service and mediation could reduce delay.
Provisions considered
- Sections 143 and 145, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Required careful, reasoned conversion of summary trials and permitted affidavit evidence for Section 202 inquiry; rejected implied discharge powers. (¶¶ 8-12, 18-21)
- Sections 202, 219, 220(1), 258 and 322, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Applied mandatory territorial-jurisdiction inquiry, distinguished joint-trial bases and preserved jurisdictional referral while excluding Section 258 from complaint cases. (¶¶ 10-22, 24)
Held
- Conversion from summary to summons trial under the second proviso to Section 143 cannot be mechanical. High Courts should direct magistrates to record reasons, exercising that discretion carefully so that the statutory aim of speedy disposal is preserved. (¶¶ 8-9, 24(1))
- Inquiry before process is mandatory where the accused resides outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Reading Section 145 with Section 202 permits complainant-side witness evidence by affidavit; suitable cases can be resolved through documents without compulsory personal witness examination. (¶¶ 10-12, 24(2)-(3))
- Section 220 permits a joint trial of offences forming the same transaction, assessed from the facts, including continuity and unity of purpose. Removing Section 219’s three-offence limit for same-kind offences within twelve months required legislative amendment, which was recommended rather than enacted by this order. (¶¶ 13-15, 24(4))
- High Courts should issue practice directions treating summons served in one complaint as deemed service in other complaints before the same court concerning cheques from the same transaction. Pending revisions should be identified for mediation and appellate courts should attempt settlement. (¶¶ 16, 23, 24(5))
- Adalat Prasad and Subramanium Sethuraman were reaffirmed: trial courts have no inherent power to review or recall process. Section 258 does not govern Section 138 complaint cases; Meters and Instruments was not good law to the extent it conferred discharge power. Section 143’s qualifying words concern summary procedure, not an additional inherent jurisdiction. (¶¶ 17-21, 24(6)-(7))
- If lack of trial jurisdiction is brought to notice, Section 322 permits staying proceedings and submitting the case to the appropriate magistrate. Wider recall powers, attachment proposals, pre-summons mediation and other undecided matters were left to the previously constituted committee. (¶¶ 7, 21-22, 24(7)-(8))
Result
Directions issued and legislative changes recommended; remaining issues referred to the committee. Matter retained and listed after eight weeks for further hearing before a three-judge Bench.