ORDER :

1. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 29th June, 2020, formulated the following question of law for being decided by a larger Bench:

“Whether in a case for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court of Magistrate exercising its power under the second proviso to Section 143 (1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if it appears to the said Court that it is undesirable to try the case summarily, after recording reasons, can proceed to try/hear the said case as a warrant case?”.

2. The learned Single Judge found that there were conflicting views expressed by the coordinate Benches on the above issue. He found that a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of M/S. Mesh Trans Gears Private Limited, Bangalore –vs-Dr. R. Parvathareddy – ILR 2014 KAR 5237 held that in a complaint alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the said Act of 1881’), the learned Magistrate has an option to try the case as a summons case when he is of the view that it is undesirable to try the case summarily. However, another learned Single Judge, in the case of Mahendra Kumar –vs-Gangamma.B – ILR 2018 KAR 4761, by relying upon a decision of another learned Single Judge rendered in the case of M/S. Leo Granex –vs-M/S. Pavillion Granites & others – ILR 2009 KAR 4062 held that if the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that it is undesirable to proceed with the trial of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the said Act of 1881 by following summary procedure, depending upon the complexity of the case, by invoking the power under Section 143 of the said Act of 1881, he can convert the summary triable case into a warrant triable case. As per the order dated 13th July, 2020 passed by the Chief Justice on the administrative side, the case is placed before this Bench for deciding the question quoted above. By Order dated 7th September 2020, this Court appointed Sri. Vikram Huyilgol, learned Additional Government Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

3. Though we are not concerned in this reference with the facts of the case, for the sake of convenience, we are briefly referring to few relevant factual aspects. The respondent-complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the said Act of 1881. The petitioner is the accused in the said complaint. Based on the application purportedly made by the petitioner-accused under Section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’), the learned XV Additional Judge and 23rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall unit, passed an order dated 9th May, 2019 and directed that the complaint be converted from summary trial to a warrant trial and procedure of warrant trial shall be followed. For impugning the said order dated 9th May, 2019 passed in C.C.No.60105/2018, the respondent-complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.25078/2019 under Section 397 of Cr.P.C before the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (CCH-58), Bengaluru. By the Judgment and order dated 30th January, 2020, the learned Session Judge has proceeded to set aside the order dated 9th May, 2019 and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case from the stage at which it was pending on 9th May, 2019. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order dated 30th January, 2020, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken us through the facts of the case. His primary submission is that in view of second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 143 of the said Act of 1881, a learned Magistrate has a power to direct that instead of hearing the case summarily, it could be tried in the manner provided under Cr.P.C. He pointed out that this power can be exercised if a learned Magistrate, during the course of the summary trial or