Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Mushir Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any objection and both the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record.

3. With the consent of the parties, the present application is being decided at the fresh stage itself.

4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 9.9.2022 with an allegation that the applicant with discharge of his liability had drawn a cheque bearing No.000148 dated 21.7.2022 of Rs.3,81,727/- which on presentation in the Bank on 27.7.2022 came to be dishonoured on 25.7.2022 communication whereof was made to the opposite party no.2 on 26.7.2022. Thereafter, a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 1.8.2022 and complaint came to be preferred on

9.9.2022 and the applicant came to be summoned in Complaint Case No.242546 of 2022 on 13.12.2022 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.The order sheet of the complaint case no.242546 of 2022 is quoted below:- िदनांक 23-9-22 पत्रावली प्रस्तुत / पिरवादी अिधवक्ता प्राथर्नापत्र अन्तर्गत धारा 138 दािखल हुआ साथ में अिधवक्ता व्दारा 200 सी आर पी सी हुआ पत्रावली दजर् रिजस्टर हो िदनॉक 3-10-22 को वास्ते वहस तलफी हेतु पेश हो। अपर िसिवल जज : जू०िडः-6 कानपुर नगर िदनॉक 3-10-22 2 NA528 No. 37473 of 2025 पत्रावली प्रस्तुत पी ओ महोदय अवकाश पर है। पत्रावली वास्ते वहस / तनकी हेतु िदनॉक 7- 1-22 को पेश हो। अपर िसिवल जज : जू०िडः-6 कानपुर नगर िदनाँक 7-1-22 पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुयी पिरवादी अिधवक्ता उपिस्थित है। वास्ते वहस / साक्षी हेतु िदनाँक 28-11- 22 को पेश हो अपर िसिवल जज : जू०िडः-6 कानपुर नगर िदनाँक 28-11-22 आज पेश हुआ। पत्रावली वास्ते तलवी आदेश हेतु िदनांक 13-12-22 को पेश हो। अपर िसिवल जज : जू०िडः-6 कानपुर नगर िदनाँक 13-12-22 पिरवादी उपिस्थित वास्ते तलवी । न्यायालय अपर िसिवल जज जु०िड०कोटर् 6 कानपुर नगर पिरवाद संख्या / 2022 फमर् गोवधर्न साडी सेन्टर बनाम फमर् चन्दन इन्टर प्राइजेज आिद धारा 138 एन आई एक्ट थाना कलेक्टरगंज कानपुर नगर िदनाँक 13-12-22 पिरवाद पुकारा गया। तलबी के िवन्दु पर पिरवादी जिरये िवव्दान अिधवक्ता को सुना गया तथा पत्रावली का सम्यक पिरशीलन िकया। पिरवादी ने अपने शपथपक्षीय साक्ष्य धारा 200 द० प्र० सं के तहत पिरवाद कथानक के तथ्यो को प्रमािणत करते हुये वयान िदया है िक िवपक्षी ने पिरवादी को चेक संख्या-000148 िदनोंिकत 21-7- 2022 मु० 381727/-रूपये एिक्सस बैंक िल० शाखा िवक्रमगंज 802212 रोहतास िवहार ब्रान्च की प्रदान की थी। जो उसके व्दारा अपने बैंक के खाते में लगाने पर उक्त चेक िदनाँक 25-7-22 को अनादिरत हो गयी। िजसकी सुचना उसने िवपक्षी को िविधक नोिटस व्दारा िदनाँक 18- 22 को प्रेिषत की। परन्तु िवपक्षी ने उक् चेक में विणत धनरािश का भुगतान नही िकयाक और नोिटस का भी कोई जवाब नही िदया है। इसके उपरान्त यह पिरवाद िदनॉक 9-9- 2022 को संिस्थित िकया गया हैं पिरवादी के व्दारा पिरवाद के समथर्न में वयान अन्र्तगत 200 द प्रस के तहत सशपथ दािखल िकया गया है िजसके समथर्न में धारा 202 द प्र स के तहत छाया प्रित चेक वैक मेमो नोिटस की प्रित पोस्टल रसीद आिद दािखल की गयी है। है। पिरवादी के वयान अन्र्तगत धारा 200 द प्रस के तहत दािखल शपथ पत्र एवं 202 द प्रसं के तहत दािखल अिभलेखीय साक्ष्य छाया प्रित चेक बैंक मेमो व िविधक नोिटस से प्रथम दृष्टया अिभयुक्त के िवरूध्द 138 एन आई एक्ट का अपराध गिठत होता है। आदेश - पिरवाद में अिभयुक्त धीरज कु मार गुप्ता को धारा 138 एन आई एक्ट में प्रसज्ञिनत करते हुये 3 NA528 No. 37473 of 2025 इस पिरवादमें िवचारण हेतु आहुत िकया जाता है। अिभयक्त के िवरूध्द सम्मन जारी करने हेतु पिरवादी पैरवी अिवलम्व करे। पिरवादी सूची गवाहान दािखल करे। तथा िवपक्षी को तलव िकये जाने हेतु पैरवी अन्दर सप्ताह प्रस्तुत करे। सम्मन के साथ पिरवाद पत्र की प्रितिलिप संलग्न की जाये। पत्रावली वास्ते हािजरी िवपक्षी िदनाँक 24-1- 23 को वास्ते हािजरी पेश हो। स्नेहा िसहं अपर िसिवल जज : जु०िड०:- 6 कानपुर नगर 7. Assailing the summoning order dated 13.12.2022 passed in complaint case no.242546 of 2022, present application has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning orders so sought to be challenged in the applications cannot be sustained for the simple reason that perusal of complaint lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant would reveal that the complainant is the resident of District Kanpur Nagar, State of Uttar Pradesh whereas the accused applicants are resident of District Rohtas, State of Bihar. He thus submits that in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate was under an obligation to postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. He thus submits that the said exercise is absolutely lacking. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to rely upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In RE: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 reported in (2021) 0 Supreme (SC) 202. He further seeks to rely upon the Full Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in Bansilal S. Kabra Vs. Global Trade Finance Limited and another in Criminal Application No.1344 of 2010, decided on 16.1.2024. Submission is that though as held in Sunil Todi and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 762, the Magistrate is under obligation to advert to the complaint, the affidavit filed by the complainant, the evidence as per evidence list and the submissions of the complainant but the said exercise is virtually lacking particularly in view of the requirement as spelt out in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, reported in (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 192. He thus submits that the impugned summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 4 NA528 No. 37473 of 2025

9. Sri Rabindra Nath Yadav, learned counsel who appears for opposite party no.2, submits that though the court below before summoning the applicant had considered the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, however according to him, he does not seek to go into the said aspects of the matter further, as according to him, the impugned summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

10. Learned State Law Officer has no objection to the same.

11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties so made at bar and perused the record.

12. Apparently, post dishonour of cheque a statutory demand notice came to be issued followed by a complaint and the summoning order came to be passed. It is not in dispute that the complainant is the resident of District Kanpur Nagar, State of Uttar Pradesh whereas the accused applicants are the resident of District Rohtas, State of Bihar thus, the inquiry as mandated in the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. The said issue is no more res integra as the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In RE: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 (supra) had occasion to consider the said aspect of the matter and it was observed as under:- "24 (1) x x x x x x x x x x x (2) Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints under Section 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. (3) For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses."

13. The abovenoted judgment came to be followed by Bansilal S. Kabra (supra) of the Bombay High Court and further, in Abhijit Pawar (supra), paragraph 24 and 25 whereof read as under:- "24) The requirement of conducting enquiry or directing investigation before issuing process is, therefore, not an empty formality. What kind of 'enquiry' is 5 NA528 No. 37473 of 2025 needed under this provision has also been explained in Vijay Dhanuka case, which is reproduced hereunder: "14. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the next question which falls for our determination is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has held the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code. The word "inquiry" has been defined under Section 2 (g) of the Code, the same reads as follows: "2. (g) 'inquiry' means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court;" It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code." 25) When we peruse the summoning order, we find that it does not reflected any such inquiry. No doubt, the order mentioned that the learned Magistrate had passed the same after reading the complaint, verification statement of complainant and after perusing the copies of documents filed on record, i.e., FIR translation of complaint, affidavit of advocate who had translated the FIR into English etc. the operative portion reads as under: "On considering facts on record, it appears that complainant has made out prima facie case against the accused for, the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 50 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence issue process against the accused for the above offences returnable on 23.12.2009. case be registered as Summary Case."

14. Since the parties are in agreement as per the instructions of their clients that the impugned summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law, thus looking into the overall facts situation and also bearing in mind the issue that there is no recital in the order sheet that prima facie, inquiry had been conducted as mandated in the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. particularly, when the complainant resides outside the territorial jurisdiction, the summoning order cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.

15. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned summoning order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law while proceeding from the stage of Section 202 CrPC. September 25, 2025 piyush (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Mushir Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any objection and both the application be decided on the basis of documents available on record.

3. With the consent of the parties, the present application is being decided at the fresh stage itself.

4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 9.9.2022 with an allegation that the applicant with discharge of his liability had drawn a cheque bearing No.000148 dated 21.7.2022 of Rs.3,81,727/- which on presentation in the Bank on 27.7.2022 came to be dishonoured on 25.7.2022 communication whereof was made to the opposite party no.2 on 26.7.2022. Thereafter, a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 1.8.2022 and complaint came to be preferred on

9.9.2022 and the applicant came to be summoned in Complaint Case No.242546 of 2022 on 13.12.2022 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.The order sheet of the complaint case no.242546 of 2022 is quoted below:- िदनांक 23-9-22 पत्रावली प्रस्तुत / पिरवादी अिधवक्ता प्राथर्नापत्र अन्तर्गत धारा 138 दािखल हुआ साथ में अिधवक्ता व्दारा 200 सी आर पी सी हुआ पत्रावली दजर् रिजस्टर हो िदनॉक 3-10-22 को वास्ते वहस तलफी हेतु पेश हो। अपर िसिवल जज : जू०िडः-6 कानपुर नगर िदनॉक 3-10-22 2 NA528 No. 37473 of 2025 पत्रावली प्रस्तुत पी ओ महोदय अवकाश पर है। पत्रावली वास्ते वहस / तनकी हेतु िदनॉक 7- 1-22 को पेश हो। अपर िसिवल जज : जू०िडः-6 कानपुर नगर िदनाँक 7-1-22 पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुयी पिरवादी अिधवक्ता उपिस्थित है। वास्ते वहस / साक्षी हेतु िदनाँक 28-11- 22 को पेश हो अपर िसिवल जज : जू०िडः-6 कानपुर नगर िदनाँक 28-11-22 आज पेश हुआ। पत्रावली वास्ते तलवी आदेश हेतु िदनांक 13-12-22 को पेश हो। अपर िसिवल जज : जू०िडः-6 कानपुर नगर िदनाँक 13-12-22 पिरवादी उपिस्थित वास्ते तलवी । न्यायालय अपर िसिवल जज जु०िड०कोटर् 6 कानपुर नगर पिरवाद संख्या / 2022 फमर् गोवधर्न साडी सेन्टर बनाम फमर् चन्दन इन्टर प्राइजेज आिद धारा 138 एन आई एक्ट थाना कलेक्टरगंज कानपुर नगर िदनाँक 13-12-22 पिरवाद पुकारा गया। तलबी के िवन्दु पर पिरवादी जिरये िवव्दान अिधवक्ता को सुना गया तथा पत्रावली का सम्यक पिरशीलन िकया। पिरवादी ने अपने शपथपक्षीय साक्ष्य धारा 200 द० प्र० सं के तहत पिरवाद कथानक के तथ्यो को प्रमािणत करते हुये वयान िदया है िक िवपक्षी ने पिरवादी को चेक संख्या-000148 िदनोंिकत 21-7- 2022 मु० 381727/-रूपये एिक्सस बैंक िल० शाखा िवक्रमगंज 802212 रोहतास िवहार ब्रान्च की प्रदान की थी। जो उसके व्दारा अपने बैंक के खाते में लगाने पर उक्त चेक िदनाँक 25-7-22 को अनादिरत हो गयी। िजसकी सुचना उसने िवपक्षी को िविधक नोिटस व्दारा िदनाँक 18- 22 को प्रेिषत की। परन्तु िवपक्षी ने उक् चेक में विणत धनरािश का भुगतान नही िकयाक और नोिटस का भी कोई जवाब नही िदया है। इसके उपरान्त यह पिरवाद िदनॉक 9-9- 2022 को संिस्थित िकया गया हैं पिरवादी के व्दारा पिरवाद के समथर्न में वयान अन्र्तगत 200 द प्रस के तहत सशपथ दािखल िकया गया है िजसके समथर्न में धारा 202 द प्र स के तहत छाया प्रित चेक वैक मेमो नोिटस की प्रित पोस्टल रसीद आिद दािखल की गयी है। है। पिरवादी के वयान अन्र्तगत धारा 200 द प्रस के तहत दािखल शपथ पत्र एवं 202 द प्रसं के तहत दािखल अिभलेखीय साक्ष्य छाया प्रित चेक बैंक मेमो व िविधक नोिटस से प्रथम दृष्टया अिभयुक्त के िवरूध्द 138 एन आई एक्ट का अपराध गिठत होता है। आदेश - पिरवाद में अिभयुक्त धीरज कु मार गुप्ता को धारा 138 एन आई एक्ट में प्रसज्ञिनत करते हुये 3 NA528 No. 37473 of 2025 इस पिरवादमें िवचारण हेतु आहुत िकया जाता है। अिभयक्त के िवरूध्द सम्मन जारी करने हेतु पिरवादी पैरवी अिवलम्व करे। पिरवादी सूची गवाहान दािखल करे। तथा िवपक्षी को तलव िकये जाने हेतु पैरवी अन्दर सप्ताह प्रस्तुत करे। सम्मन के साथ पिरवाद पत्र की प्रितिलिप संलग्न की जाये। पत्रावली वास्ते हािजरी िवपक्षी िदनाँक 24-1- 23 को वास्ते हािजरी पेश हो। स्नेहा िसहं अपर िसिवल जज : जु०िड०:- 6 कानपुर नगर 7. Assailing the summoning order dated 13.12.2022 passed in complaint case no.242546 of 2022, present application has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning orders so sought to be challenged in the applications cannot be sustained for the simple reason that perusal of complaint lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant would reveal that the complainant is the resident of District Kanpur Nagar, State of Uttar Pradesh whereas the accused applicants are resident of District Rohtas, State of Bihar. He thus submits that in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate was under an obligation to postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. He thus submits that the said exercise is absolutely lacking. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to rely upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In RE: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 reported in (2021) 0 Supreme (SC) 202. He further seeks to rely upon the Full Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in Bansilal S. Kabra Vs. Global Trade Finance Limited and another in Criminal Application No.1344 of 2010, decided on 16.1.2024. Submission is that though as held in Sunil Todi and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 762, the Magistrate is under obligation to advert to the complaint, the affidavit filed by the complainant, the evidence as per evidence list and the submissions of the complainant but the said exercise is virtually lacking particularly in view of the requirement as spelt out in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, reported in (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 192. He thus submits that the impugned summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 4 NA528 No. 37473 of 2025

9. Sri Rabindra Nath Yadav, learned counsel who appears for opposite party no.2, submits that though the court below before summoning the applicant had considered the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, however according to him, he does not seek to go into the said aspects of the matter further, as according to him, the impugned summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

10. Learned State Law Officer has no objection to the same.

11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties so made at bar and perused the record.

12. Apparently, post dishonour of cheque a statutory demand notice came to be issued followed by a complaint and the summoning order came to be passed. It is not in dispute that the complainant is the resident of District Kanpur Nagar, State of Uttar Pradesh whereas the accused applicants are the resident of District Rohtas, State of Bihar thus, the inquiry as mandated in the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. The said issue is no more res integra as the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In RE: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 (supra) had occasion to consider the said aspect of the matter and it was observed as under:- "24 (1) x x x x x x x x x x x (2) Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints under Section 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. (3) For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses."

13. The abovenoted judgment came to be followed by Bansilal S. Kabra (supra) of the Bombay High Court and further, in Abhijit Pawar (supra), paragraph 24 and 25 whereof read as under:- "24) The requirement of conducting enquiry or directing investigation before issuing process is, therefore, not an empty formality. What kind of 'enquiry' is 5 NA528 No. 37473 of 2025 needed under this provision has also been explained in Vijay Dhanuka case, which is reproduced hereunder: "14. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the next question which falls for our determination is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has held the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code. The word "inquiry" has been defined under Section 2 (g) of the Code, the same reads as follows: "2. (g) 'inquiry' means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court;" It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code." 25) When we peruse the summoning order, we find that it does not reflected any such inquiry. No doubt, the order mentioned that the learned Magistrate had passed the same after reading the complaint, verification statement of complainant and after perusing the copies of documents filed on record, i.e., FIR translation of complaint, affidavit of advocate who had translated the FIR into English etc. the operative portion reads as under: "On considering facts on record, it appears that complainant has made out prima facie case against the accused for, the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 50 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence issue process against the accused for the above offences returnable on 23.12.2009. case be registered as Summary Case."

14. Since the parties are in agreement as per the instructions of their clients that the impugned summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law, thus looking into the overall facts situation and also bearing in mind the issue that there is no recital in the order sheet that prima facie, inquiry had been conducted as mandated in the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. particularly, when the complainant resides outside the territorial jurisdiction, the summoning order cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.

15. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned summoning order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law while proceeding from the stage of Section 202 CrPC. September 25, 2025 piyush (Vikas Budhwar,J.)