The trial court must follow the prescribed procedure for summary trial under the N.I. Act and cannot invoke Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. without proper reasons and compliance.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Rama Pati Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State, and perused the record.

2. This application has been filed with the prayer to grant Special Leave to Appeal, which is sought to be preferred against the order dated 23rd of December 2021 passed by the Additional Court, Faizabad whereby the Complaint Case No. 222 of 2021 filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act'), Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that legal question is involved in the matter as to whether the Magistrate, while invoking the provision under Section 138 and 143 of the N.I. Act can proceed matter as a summon trial. Further whether Section 256 of the Indian Penal Code can be invoked without assigning reasons while proceeding with the summary trial under Section 143 of the N.I. Act.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court cannot proceed under Section 256 as the order impugned dated 23rd of December 2021 has been passed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 256 of the I.P.C. whereas the matter is to proceed as summary trial and the same will proceed as per the provisions of Section 262 to 265 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. Considering the aforesaid provisions as well as going through the record, it is evident that a pure legal question is involved in this matter and, prima facie, it seems that the Magistrate has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, the application of the applicant with the prayer to grant leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

6. Leave to appeal is granted.

7. The factual matrix of the case is that Complaint Case No. 222 of 2021, Lal Chandra Shukla Vs. Rajdev, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed on the ground that in the month of January 2015, an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was taken by the accused-respondent no.2 as debt and respondent no.2 promised that he will return the aforesaid debt amount within a period of one year. The said amount was not returned to the appellant within the time as was promised by the respondent no.2.

8. The appellant, when asked about repayment of the aforesaid debt, the respondent no.2 issued two cheques (bearing nos. 666167 and 666168) each for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs of his Account No.10294106494 of State Bank of India, Branch Faizabad, District Faizabad (now Ayodhya). On receiving the aforesaid cheques, the appellant presented the same on 1st/2nd of February 2017 in his bank account of Bank of Baroda, U.P. Gramin Bank, Ayodhya. On the aforesaid presentation of the cheques, the bank informed the appellant on 4th of February 2017 that those cheques issued by the respondent no.2 were dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of the respondent no.2. On receiving the aforesaid information, the appellant sent notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to the respondent no.2, which he has refused to receive.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant presented the appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Faizabad, which was transferred for hearing to the Additional Court.

10. After the institution of the aforesaid case, the learned trial court taking the recourse as provided under Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') issued summons and, after the service of summons, when the respondent no.2 did not appear before the trial court, bailable warrants were issued and, in case of non-compliance of the same, non-bailable warrants were also issued against the respondent no.2. After issuance of the aforesaid non-bailable warrant, the respondent no.2 appeared before the trial court on 7th of January 2020 and applied for bail. On such application for bail of the accused/resp