2022 (4) TMI 1559 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - reference is sought to be made under sub section (2) of Section 395 Cr.P.C. by way of which a magistrate may refer for the decision to the Hon'ble High Court any question of law arising in the hearing of a case - HELD THAT - In terms of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in ADALAT PRASAD VERSUS ROOPLAL JINDAL OTHERS 2004 (8) TMI 647 - SUPREME COURT and SUBRAMANIUM SETHURAMAN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ANR. 2004 (9) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT , the Trial Court cannot be conferred with inherent powers, either to review or recall the order of issuance of process - As held in Adalat Prasad and Subramanium Sethuraman, the Magistrate is deluded with the power to revisit the order of issue of process, except to the limited extent that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. In other words, the Trial Court has no inherent jurisdiction to revisit the order of issue of process within the meaning of the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. Further, it has been clearly held that, in any event, the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). The Court of a Magistrate does not have the power to discharge the accused upon his appearance in Court in a summons trial case based upon a complaint in general, and particularly in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, once cognizance has already been taken and process issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. - Reference answered accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the power of the Magistrate to discharge an accused in a case under Section 138.
2. Reference under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the decision of the High Court on questions of law.
3. Applicability of Section 143 of the NI Act in summary triable cases.
4. Power of the Magistrate to stop proceedings under Section 258 of the CrPC.
5. Consideration of judgments in Adalat Prasad and Subramanium Sethuraman by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act concerning the power of the Magistrate to discharge an accused in a case under Section 138. The Court clarified that the Trial Court does not possess inherent powers to review or recall the order of issuance of process once cognizance has been taken and process issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. This conclusion was drawn based on the judgments in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, which established that the Magistrate lacks the authority to revisit the order of issue of process, except in cases where the Court lacks jurisdiction to try the case.

2. The judgment was delivered in response to a reference made under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows a Magistrate to refer questions of law arising in a case to the High Court for decision. The Court considered the questions raised in the reference petition and provided a detailed analysis based on legal precedents and statutory provisions.

3. The Court also discussed the applicability of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in summary triable cases. It emphasized that the provisions of Section 143 should be interpreted in conjunction with the statutory scheme post the 2002 Amendment, which confers implied power on the Magistrate to discharge the accused under certain circumstances related to compensation to the complainant. The Court highlighted the need for a balanced approach to uphold the rights of both the complainant and the accused while ensuring access to justice.

4. Furthermore, the judgment addressed the power of the Magistrate to stop proceedings under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It clarified that Section 258 is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court reiterated that the Trial Court does not have the authority to discharge an accused based on the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions without interpolation or reinterpretation.

5. Lastly, the High Court considered the judgments in Adalat Prasad and Subramanium Sethuraman to reaffirm that there is no inherent power of Trial Courts to review or recall the issue of summons. It emphasized the need for statutory amendments to empower Trial Courts to reconsider or recall summons in cases under Section 138 of the Act. The Court highlighted the importance of following established legal principles and statutory provisions to ensure a fair and efficient judicial process.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues addressed by the High Court in interpreting the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.