The order issuing process/summons for an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not an interlocutory order but is intermediatory/quasi-final in nature, providing the accused with dual remedies under Sec. 397 and Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The captioned petition is filed by the accused feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, wherein the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein under Sec. 397(2) of Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not maintainable.

2. The respondent-Complainant has filed a private complaint under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate recorded sworn statement, took cognizance and issued process to the accused. The said order was sought to be challenged by way of a revision under Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process. The learned District Judge had declined to entertain the revision petition on the premise that the order taking cognizance is in the nature of interlocutory order and revision petition is not maintainable.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondentComplainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the two judgments of the Apex Court in the Case of DHARIWAL TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 806 and URMILA DEVI Vs. YUDHVIR SINGH reported in (2013) 15 SCC 624

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts on hand and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by petitioner/accused.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the issue relating to order of taking cognizance and whether it amounts to interlocutory or final order, has held that the issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C. Similar view is also expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in the case of Urmila Devi (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that against the order issuing process/summons, the accused has dual remedy. The Apex Court also held that the order issuing process/summon is not an interlocutory order but is intermediatory/quasi-final in nature and therefore, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C but simultaneously is also entitled for a remedy under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is not sustainable and I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed by this Court.

8. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal petition is allowed

ii. The order dtd. 15/7/2017 in Crl.R.P.No.223/2017 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru is quashed.

iii. The complaint is of the year 2013 and the amount covered under the cheque is Rs.10, 00, 000.00. Therefore, the learned District Judge is hereby directed to expedite the matter and hear the revision and decide as early as possible.

iv. Since the accused and complainant are represented by their respective counsel, they are hereby directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 17/7/2023 without expecting any further notice.