IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881 versus .

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 16-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, A.S. BOPANNA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
257
   [2021] 4 S.C.R. 257
257
IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138
OF N.I. ACT 1881.
(Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2020)
APRIL 16, 2021
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI,
A. S. BOPANNA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: s. 138 – Expeditious trial/
disposal of cases u/s. 138 – Pendency of matters u/s. 138 at various
levels, having adverse effect in disposal of other criminal cases –
Imminent need for remedying the situation – Suo Motu Writ Petition
– Issuance of notice to Union of India, Registrar Generals of the
High Courts, Director Generals of Police of the States and Union
Territories, Member Secretary of the National Legal Services
Authority, Reserve Bank of India and Indian Banks’ Association –
Submission of preliminary report by amici curiae, based on the
responses by the State Government and Union Territories – In veiw
thereof, necessary suggestions made for redressal of backlog of
cases, by this Court – Request to High Courts to issue practice
directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting
trial of complaints u/s 138 from summary trial to summons trial –
Inquiry to be conducted on receipt of complaints u/s 138 to arrive
at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such
accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court –
For the conduct of inquiry u/s 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses
on behalf of the complainant to be permitted to be taken on affidavit,
and in suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to
examination of documents without insisting for examination of
witnesses – Amendments be made to the Act for provision of one
trial against a person for multiple offences u/s 138 committed within
a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in s. 219 of
the Code – Request to High Courts to issue practice directions to
the trial courts to treat service of summons in one complaint u/s 138
forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all
the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of
cheques issued as part of the said transaction – Amendment to the
Act empowering the trial courts to reconsider/recall summons in
respect of complaints u/s 138 to be considered by the Committee
constituted, alongwith the other issues relating to expeditious
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
disposal of complaints u/s 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
– ss. 202, 219, 258, 322.
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Others (2004) 7
SCC 338; Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 324 – relied on.
Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another v.
Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560 : [2017] 10 SCR 66
– held not correct law.
Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. v. Najima Mamtaj & Ors. (2014)
14 SCC 638 : [2014] 4 SCR 171; Abhijit Pawar v.
Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Anr. (2017) 3 SCC
528 : [2016] 9 SCR 475; Birla Corporation Limited v.
Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Ors.
(2019) 16 SCC 610 : [2019] 7 SCR 655; K.S. Joseph
v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd & Anr. (2016) 11 SCC
105 : [2016] 2 SCR 914; Balbir v. State of Haryana &
Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 285 : [1999] 4  Suppl.  SCR  120;
Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2019
(10) SCJ 238; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati
Ganeswara Rao & Anr. [1964] 3 SCR 297; K. M.
Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr (1992) 1 SCC 217 :
[1991] 2 Suppl.  SCR  364; Union of India v. Deoki
Nandan Aggarwal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : [1991] 3
SCR 873 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 4 SCR 171
referred to
Para 10
[2016] 9 SCR 475
referred to
Para 10
[2019] 7 SCR 655  
referred to
Para 10
[2016] 2 SCR 914
referred to
Para 11
[1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 120
referred to
Para 13
2019 (10) SCJ 238
referred to
Para14
[1964] 3 SCR 297
referred to
Para 15
[1991] 2 Suppl.  SCR  364
referred to
Para 17
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
259
[1991] 3 SCR 873
referred to
Para 20
(2004) 7 SCC 338
relied on
Para 24
(2004) 13 SCC 324
relied on
Para24
[2017] 10 SCR 66  
held not correct law
Para 24
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020.
Suo Motu Proceeding Under Article 32 of The Constitution.
Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG., Vikramjit Banerjee, Ld. ASG., Neeraj,
Mrs. Garima Prashad, AAGs., Sidharth Luthra, Mrs. Garima Prashad,
Soumya Chakraborty, Sunil Kumar, P.H. Parekh, Thomas P. Joseph, Sr.
Adv., K. Parameshwar, M.V. Mukunda, Ms. A. Sregurupriya, Rajat
Mathur, Anmol Kheta,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.