Guidelines laid down by The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore
S. Borcar
(Cheque bounce Case)
A. Service of summons: “dasti” + electronic service
What the Court ordered: besides the normal official modes, the
complainant must also effect personal delivery (“dasti” — handing/serving
the summons personally or by an agent) of the summons on the accused.
Trial courts should also use electronic service where allowed under the
BNSS rules (e-mail, WhatsApp, etc.). The complainant must supply the
accused’s email/phone/WhatsApp details in an affidavit when filing the
complaint.
Why: many complainants (especially banks/financial institutions) file in
metropolitan courts under Section 142(2), but the accused may live
elsewhere; dasti + e-service reduces delay in getting the accused before
court.
B. Affidavit of service by complainant
The complainant has to file an affidavit saying how and when the summons
was served. If that affidavit is false, the court may take action
(contempt/penal or other appropriate action). This is to discourage fake
service returns that delay cases.
C. Online payment facility (QR/UPI) on court portals
Each Principal District & Sessions Judge should enable secure online payment links
(QR / UPI) for Section 138 matters. The summons must say the accused can pay the
cheque amount right away via that link. If payment is received, the court can pass
orders for release/compounding/closure under the applicable provisions (Section
147 NI Act / Section 255 CrPC or BNSS equivalents). This encourages settlement at
the threshold.
D. Mandatory short “synopsis” at the top of every Section 138 complaint
A one-page factual summary (immediately after index) is required with fixed fields:
parties, cheque details, presentation/dishonour dates, statutory notice details and
proof, cause of action date, jurisdiction invoked, relief sought, etc. Purpose:
judges/clerks can immediately see key facts and process the case faster.
E. No pre-cognizance summons under Section 223 BNSS
The Court agreed with a Karnataka High Court view that for Section 138 complaints
there is no need to issue summons at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223
(BNSS). In simple terms: the magistrate need not issue the technical pre-cognizance
summons before taking cognizance — that avoids a procedural step that was causing
delay. (The judgment refers to the Ashok v. Fayaz Ahmad view and follows it.)
F & G. Early court questioning (summary questions) to decide whether trial should
remain summary
The court may, at the initial post-cognizance stage, ask short, focused questions
(under Section 251 CrPC / Section 274 BNSS) such as:
Is the cheque from your account? Yes/No.
Is the signature yours? Yes/No.
Did you deliver the cheque? Yes/No.
Did you owe the complainant money when cheque issued? Yes/No.
If denying, state defence (security cheque, loan repaid, alteration/misuse, other).
Do you wish to compound the case now? Yes/No.
The court will record answers on the order-sheet in presence of accused/counsel and
then decide whether to keep it as a summary trial (fast procedure) or convert to a
summons trial — but the court must record cogent reasons if it converts to a slower
mode. Purpose: early triage so cases that can be resolved quickly get resolved.
H. Interim deposit power (Section 143A)
Where appropriate the trial court should use its power to order
interim deposits early (so some money is available while the case
proceeds). This helps settlement and protects complainant’s
interest.
I. Physical courtroom appearance after summons; digital before summons only
The Court asked High Courts to place matters in physical courts after
summons are served (physical presence helps informal settlement). Before
service of summons, initial listing in digital courts is acceptable. Exemptions
from personal appearance only where facts justify it.
J. Evening courts — realistic pecuniary limits
If evening courts handle Section 138 matters, High Courts should ensure the
monetary threshold assigned to such courts is realistic (example: Delhi’s cap of
₹25,000 was said to be too low). High Courts should set sensible limits so evening
courts can meaningfully reduce pendency.
K. Dashboards & monitoring (Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta)
District & Sessions Judges in these metros must maintain dashboards showing
pendency, monthly disposals, settlement rates, avg adjournments, stage-wise
pendency, etc., and review magistrates monthly. Quarterly consolidated report to
High Court. Purpose: administrative accountability to reduce backlog.
L. Administrative committees
Chief Justices of the three metros should set up administrative committees to
monitor and improve disposal of Section 138 cases (monthly meetings, consider
assigning experienced magistrates, promote mediation/Lok Adalats).
The compounding rule change — what changed
Background: Damodar S. Prabhu (the earlier Supreme Court guideline) had a graded scheme to
encourage early compounding (settlement) by imposing higher costs the later the compounding
application came. The percentages under the older scheme were roughly: 0% (if compounded at
first/second hearing), 10% (if compounding later before Magistrate), 15% (if before Sessions/High
Court), 20% (if before Supreme Court).
New (modified in Sanjabij Tari): the Court has revisited and lowered/tweaked those figures to
reflect changed circumstances (e.g., lower interest rates). The new scheme is:
If accused pays the cheque amount before recording of his evidence (i.e., before defence
evidence) — compounding may be allowed without any cost/penalty.
If accused pays after recording his evidence but before judgment — Magistrate may compound
on payment of additional 5% of cheque amount (to Legal Services Authority or similar).
If payment is made before Sessions Court or High Court in revision/appeal — compounding may
be allowed on payment of 7.5% of cheque amount.
If tendered before the Supreme Court — the figure is 10% of the cheque amount.
