The procedure to be followed in summary trials under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in light of the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association and Others v/s. Union of India and Others.

Headnote:
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - SECTION 138 - SUMMARY TRIAL - DIRECTIONS OF HON'BLE APEX COURT - APPLICABILITY - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, complainants in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), filed applications before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate seeking to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association and Others v/s. Union of India and Others. The petitioners argued that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is document-based and that the respondent/accused should move an application to call the petitioner/complainant for cross-examination.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association and Others v/s. Union of India and Others are applicable to the pending cases. However, the Court noted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had passed orders suggesting that it was undesirable to try the case summarily and that the procedure of 'Summons Trial' would be followed. The Court also noted that the complainant had not followed the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing the evidence affidavit along with the filing of the complaint.
Issues: 1. Whether the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association and Others v/s. Union of India and Others are applicable to the pending cases. 2. Whether the procedure of 'Summary Trial' should be followed in the present cases.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association and Others v/s. Union of India and Others are applicable to the pending cases. 2. The procedure of 'Summary Trial' should not be followed in the present cases as the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had passed orders suggesting that it was undesirable to try the case summarily.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the main proceeding(s) on its own merits within a time-frame of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

GRM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 13 OF 2020 Puneet Ravindra Ruia through Constituted Attorney Ravindra Shubhkaran Ruia … Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 14 OF 2020 Arti Sameer Harlalka through Constituted Attorney Sachin Subhash Harlalka … Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 15 OF 2020 Ravindrakumar Ruia H.U.F. through its Karta Ravindra Shubhkaran Ruia … Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 16 OF 2020 Komal Ravindrakumar Ruia through Constituted Attorney Ravindra Shubhkaran Ruia … Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2019 M/s. Rohit and Company through Constituted Attorney Arun Mahabir P.

Ansari … Petitioner V/s.

M/s. Premier Industries & Ors. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1463 OF 2018 J. K. Steel Corporation, a Proprietary Firm … Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1464 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1465 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1466 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1467 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1471 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1473 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1474 OF 2018 Sandeep Steels … Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Siddharth Murarka a/w Mr. Devendra Tiwari i/b Law Chamber of Siddharth Murarka, Adv. for the Petitioner.

Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the State/Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Kapil Dave, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J. DATED : JANUARY 6, 2023 P.C. :

1. This group of writ petitions is being decided by this common order since common questions of fact and law arise therein.

2. The petitioners in all these petitions, is a complainant in the proceedings/complaints initiated by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”). The petitioner/complainant moved an application(s) before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate seized of the matters. The said application(s) was moved for conducting those proceedings in the terms of directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and Others v/s. Union of India and Others in Writ Petition No. 18 of 2013.

3. Heard.

4. Learned Advocate for petitioners took this Court through the entire judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Indian Bank Association and Others v/s. Union of India and Others (supra). He then referred and relied on the provisions under Sections 138 & 145 of NI Act and the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to the learned Advocate, it is for the respondent/accused to move an application to call the petitioner/complainant for cross-examination. The offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act is document based.

5. Instead of detaining myself to the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioner, it would be desirable to reproduce the directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the compliance of which was sought to be enforced before the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrate seized of the matters.

The directions are as follows :-

i. Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/ JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons.

ii. MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice to the accused. F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document