The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court's decision to try the complaint case as a summons case was justified based on the nature of the case and the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year, in accordance with Section 143 of the NI Act.

Headnote:
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Trial as Summons Case - Section 143 of the NI Act - [Section 143 of the NI Act] - The court upheld the trial of the complaint case as a summons case based on the nature of the case and the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year. The court referred to relevant provisions and case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the order for trial of a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as a summons case. The trial court and the revisional court upheld the trial as a summons case based on the nature of the case and the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court's decision to try the case as a summons case was justified based on the nature of the case and the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year. The revisional court also upheld this decision.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of trying the complaint case as a summons case under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial as a summons case was justified based on the nature of the case and the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year, in accordance with Section 143 of the NI Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as it lacked merit.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for seeking the quashing of the order dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram (for short 'the trial Court') in NACT/1290/2014 dated 03.03.2014 titled as"Sanjay Thakran vs. Subhash Chand Sharma " whereby the said complaint case has been ordered to be tried as summons case and also of the judgment dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, (for short 'the Revisional Court') dismissing the Criminal Revision as preferred by him (petitioner) to assail the order Annexure P-1.

2. As per the brief factual-matrix culminating in the filing of the present petition, the respondent-complainant (for short 'the complainant') filed the above-said Criminal Complaint case against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NIAct') with the allegation qua the dishonour of the cheque worth Rs.1,42,00,000/- as issued by him (petitioner). After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court summoned the petitioner. Then, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned order Annexure P-l for serving the notice of accusation to the petitioner under the above-said provisions and for trying the said Complaint Case as a summons case. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing the Criminal Revision but the Revisional Court has upheld the same while dismissing the revision petition vide the impugned judgment Annexure P-2 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition at the preliminary stage and have also perused the file thoroughly.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has passed order Annexure P-l for the trial of the said Criminal Complaint case as summons case without recording any cogent reasons for the same and the Revisional Court has also misconstrued the provisions as contained in Section 143 of the NI Act while passing judgment Annexure P-2 and therefore, the same are not legally sustainable and are liable to be quashed. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl) No.2 of 2020 In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of NI Act 1881 Decided on 16.04.2021 (SO: M/s Meters and Instruments Private limited & Anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta 2017(4) RC.R (Criminal)476 (SO; Tripati Vvas vs. State of Raiasthan and another 2013(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 110 (Raiasthan) and Swaminatha Pillai vs. Mr. ASenthil Kumar 2013(5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 429 (Madras).

5. However, this contention is devoid of any force because the relevant part of the impugned order Annexure P-l, as passed by learned trial Court, reads as under:-

"xxxxxx

At this stage, facts of the case perused. Upon perusal of the file, it appears that nature of the case is such that sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may be passed in the present case and therefore, it is undesirable to try the case summarily and it is further necessary to do so to avoid the bar of Section 326(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the case shall now be tried as summons case. Now to come up on 26.02.2020 for complainant's evidence."

6. The second proviso appended to Section 143 of the NI Actprovides as under: -

"Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall after hearing the parties, record an order to that effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to hear and rehear the case in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document