The Supreme Court, aligning with the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Ashok v. Fayaz Aahmad (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 490), has determined that no summons need be issued to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), recognizing its status as a special enactment. The court has also rolled out comprehensive guidelines to expedite the disposal of cheque bounce cases, tackling the persistent backlog, delays in summons service, and promoting early settlements through innovative measures like online payment systems and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Additionally, it affirmed the maintainability of Section 138 NI Act cases for cash loans above Rs. 20,000, overturning a contrary Kerala High Court ruling, while directing the integration of technology such as email, WhatsApp, and QR codes, alongside physical hearings post-summons, and establishing dashboards and monitoring committees in Delhi, Mumbai, and Kolkata to oversee progress.
Facts: The Supreme Court, on September 26, 2025, adjudicated Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2010), prompted by a cheque dishonour dispute where the Bombay High Court’s ex-parte acquittal on April 16, 2009, was challenged. The case revolved around a Rs. 6,00,000 loan transaction, with the appellant-complainant’s evidence of a dishonored cheque upheld by the Trial and Sessions Courts, only to be overturned by the High Court in revision. This broader context highlighted a massive backlog of Section 138 NI Act cases, with summons service delays identified as a key impediment, and the NI Act’s punitive focus leaning towards payment recovery rather than retribution. The court drew on the Karnataka High Court’s precedent in Ashok v. Fayaz Aahmad and conducted a suo motu review of procedural efficiencies, considering the systemic delays plaguing metropolitan courts.
Issues: The key questions before the court included whether summons must be issued to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223 BNSS for Section 138 NI Act complaints, how to address the backlog and delays in cheque bounce case disposals, particularly regarding summons service and trial processes, whether Section 138 NI Act applies to cash loans above Rs. 20,000 contrary to the Kerala High Court’s stance, and what procedural and technological reforms could enhance efficiency and encourage early settlement in NI Act cases.
Law: The legal framework encompassed Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, which criminalizes cheque dishonour for insufficient funds with punishment up to two years, fine, or both, supported by a presumption of debt under Section 139 unless rebutted, alongside Section 147 allowing compounding and Section 143A permitting interim compensation. Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023, governs summons issuance post-cognizance, subject to special enactments like the NI Act, while Section 251 CrPC/274 BNSS empowers courts to frame charges and pose questions. Article 21 of the Constitution implies speedy justice as part of the right to life and liberty, with precedents like *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) on procedural safeguards and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act on summary trial protocols shaping the analysis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that no pre-cognizance summons are required under Section 223 BNSS for Section 138 NI Act cases, as the NI Act’s special nature overrides general procedural mandates, aligning with Ashok v. Fayaz Aahmad. It addressed delays by mandating innovative solutions such as dasti service by complainants, electronic delivery via email and WhatsApp, and online payment options like QR codes/UPI to enable early compounding under Section 147 NI Act or closure under Section 255 CrPC/278 BNSS. The judgment affirmed Section 138’s applicability to cash loans above Rs. 20,000, rejecting the Kerala High Court’s restrictive view, and emphasized efficiency through physical hearings post-summons, justified reasons for trial conversions, realistic pecuniary limits for evening courts, and monitoring via dashboards and High Court committees.
Decision: The appeal was allowed, reinstating the Trial and Sessions Courts’ conviction of Kishore S. Borcar under Section 138 NI Act, overturning the Bombay High Court’s acquittal. The court directed that pre-cognizance summons under Section 223 BNSS are unnecessary for NI Act complaints and issued guidelines mandating summons via dasti and electronic means with verified contact details, requiring an affidavit of service with penalties for falsehood, creating online payment facilities for early settlement, requiring a mandatory synopsis with each complaint, justifying trial conversions with initial questioning, allowing interim deposits under Section 143A, ensuring physical hearings post-summons, setting realistic evening court limits, maintaining dashboards in Delhi, Mumbai, and Kolkata, and forming monitoring committees by respective Chief Justices. It also overturned the Kerala High Court’s ruling, affirming Section 138’s applicability to cash loans above Rs. 20,000.
Conclusion: This judgment marks a transformative leap in handling cheque bounce cases, eliminating pre-cognizance summons to accelerate justice, leveraging technology for summons and settlements, and reinforcing the NI Act’s role in financial credibility. By aligning with Ashok v. Fayaz Aahmad and addressing systemic delays, the Supreme Court ensures a balanced approach, protecting complainants while streamlining accused rights. The directives, supported by dashboards and the promotion of alternative dispute resolution, promise to slash the Rs. 1.5 lakh crore backlog, offering a blueprint for judicial efficiency that legal practitioners and courts nationwide must embrace. The ruling’s affirmation of cash loan cases broadens the Act’s reach, cementing its status as a cornerstone of commercial dispute resolution.
Case Details: Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. | Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2010
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 