Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 25 -

NC: 2024:KHC:38869 petition under Section 397 would not be maintainable.

13.14. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanium Sethuraman vs State of Maharashtra & Anr (Coram: 3 JJ)3, wherein it is held thus:

"Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate, the complainant filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which by the impugned order reiterated its earlier view that it was not open to the Magistrate to order the discharge of an accused once his plea has been recorded and on that basis it allowed the revision petition of the complainant keeping open the question of validity of the statutory notice to be raised at the trial.

- 27 -

NC: 2024:KHC:38869 doubt the concerned court entertaining the application will also take into consideration the objections i.e. raised by the respondent in this case as to delay i.e. being caused by the entertainment of applications and petitions filed by the accused. With the above observations this appeal fails and the same is dismissed."

13.15. Relying on the decision in Subramanium Sethuraman's case, he submits that there is no power with the Magistrate to order the discharge of an accused once his plea has been recorded in a proceeding contemplated under Chapter-XX i.e. summons case, once summons has been issued, the statement of the accused are to be recorded and the trial to proceed to its logical conclusion and the remedy which is available is to file for proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and not an application to recall the summons or to seek discharge, thus he submits that an application under Section 251 was not maintainable.

24.5. The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the trial courts to treat service of summons in one complaint under Section 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.

24.6. The judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad [Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338 :

2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] and Subramanium Sethuraman [Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 13 SCC 324 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 242] have interpreted the law correctly and we reiterate that there is no inherent power of trial courts to review or recall the issue of summons. This does not affect the power of the trial court under Section 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the court's notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint.