In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S Borcar & Anr. [2025 INSC 1158], the Supreme Court has issued a set of directives aimed at the speedy disposal of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Acknowledging that cheque dishonour cases constitute a major portion of the criminal docket, the Supreme Court stressed the need for systemic reforms that integrate technology and mediatory mechanisms to reduce delays and unclog the judiciary.
Part 1: Modernizing Procedure and Promoting Settlement
The guidelines emphasize the use of technology for both serving summons and facilitating early payments.
Service of Summons: Courts must use modern methods for serving summons, including email and messaging applications, in addition to traditional modes. Complainants are also permitted to serve summons directly (dasti) and must provide the accused’s contact details in a sworn affidavit.
Affidavit of Service: The complainant must file an affidavit confirming that the service of summons has been completed.
Online Payment System: Each District Court must create a dedicated online payment facility (QR code or UPI link). The summons must inform the accused of this option, allowing them to pay the cheque amount at the outset to facilitate the compounding or closure of the case.
Part 2: Standardizing Court Processes
The Court has mandated several changes to streamline pleadings and the trial process itself.
Standardized Complaint Synopsis: Every complaint must begin with a synopsis in a prescribed format, detailing particulars of the parties, cheque, dishonour, statutory notice, and cause of action.
No Pre-Cognizance Hearing for Accused: The accused is not required to be heard at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223 of the BNSS.
Structured Post-Cognizance Inquiry: After taking cognizance, the court can ask a set of prescribed questions to the accused to ascertain their defence and determine if the case is suitable for a summary trial.
Interim Compensation: Trial courts are encouraged to use their power to order the payment of interim compensation under Section 143A of the N.I. Act at an early stage.
Part 3: Court Management and Monitoring
The final set of guidelines focuses on infrastructure and accountability.
Digital and Physical Courts: Matters may be listed before digital courts prior to the service of summons, but should be placed before physical courts thereafter to encourage early resolution.
Evening Courts: High Courts must set realistic pecuniary limits for evening courts to hear these matters, as the current limits (e.g., ₹25,000 in Delhi) are too low.
Monitoring in High-Pendency Jurisdictions: The District and Sessions Judges in Delhi, Mumbai, and Calcutta must maintain dedicated dashboards to track the pendency and disposal rates of these cases. The Chief Justices of these High Courts are requested to form monitoring committees to ensure expeditious disposal and promote alternative dispute resolution.
Conclusion
These guidelines represent a concerted judicial effort to tackle the immense backlog of cheque dishonour cases that burden the Indian judiciary.
