Madras High Court issues directions to streamline cheque bounce cases

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday issued a series of directions to streamline and ensure the prompt disposal of cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), based on guidelines already issued by the Supreme Court over the years in such matters [M/s.Ultimate Computer Care and anr. v. M/s SMK Systems]..Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order while disposing of a plea tied to one such case which had remained pending on the files of the trial court for nearly three years. The High Court took judicial notice of the fact that cheque bounce cases have been clogging magistrate courts for years. The very purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act and related provisions would stand defeated on account of such delays, he observed. .The judge also noted that the Supreme Court had tried to address the problem by issuing various directions in several cases, eventually even initiating a suo motu case in 2021 titled In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881.However, the directives issued by the top court have remained on paper due to a lack of proper oversight, the High Court lamented.To remedy this 'unfortunate state of affairs', the High Court decided to consolidate the directions issued so far by the Supreme Court and formulate guidelines for trial courts to follow to tackle the mounting pendency of cheque bounce cases.The judge added that these directions would be effective from March 3, and would remain in force until further practice directions are issued by the High Court in line with the Supreme Court's orders in its 2021 suo motu case. "These directions shall come into force from 03.03.2025, and shall hold the field until appropriate practice directions are issued by the High Court pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, In re, (2021) 16 SCC 116," the ruling stated. .N-STEP facility to issue summonsAmong other directions and suggestions, Justice Venkatesh also batted for the use of the National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes (N-STEP) facility to serve summons in cheque bounce cases. The NSTEP facility involves the electronic delivery of summons. The judge noted that this service is already being used by the Madras High Court to serve summons in civil cases before it. He proceeded to refer the matter to the Chief Justice so that a decision could be taken on whether such a facility could be used for serving summons in NI Act cases as well."On the administrative side, the High Court may explore the possibility of extending the N-STEP facility for service of summons which is currently used for civil cases to cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having regard to the fact that the offence has been held to be quasi-criminal in character," Justice Venkatesh reasoned..Guidelines issued The directions issued by the Court deal with various stages of trial in cheque bounce cases, from the stage of whether a trial court should entertain a complaint, the issuance of process and summons, the grant of interim compensation, how trial proceedings should be continued after the accused appears before the court and the kind of trial expected in such cases.Among other directions, the Court instructed trial courts to ensure that the examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant is conducted within three months from the date on which the trial starts. "It will be the duty of all concerned to stick to the schedule, and adjournments/re-scheduling of dates shall not be granted unless for strong and exceptional reasons, and that too upon imposition of costs," the Court added.The Court also asked trial courts to make every effort to complete the proceedings within the time frame fixed under Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The Court further directed that a copy of its order be sent to all Principal District Judges in Tamil Nadu, so that it may be communicated to judicial magistrates who hear such cases. .Advocate KA Raamakrishnan appeared for the petitioners before the High Court, whereas advocate M Jothibasu represented the respondents. .[Read Judgment with guidelines]