High Court Stresses Judicial Discipline
The Orissa High Court maintainability cheque bounce case has reaffirmed that subordinate courts must strictly comply with directions issued by superior courts. The High Court reprimanded a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) for refusing to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Justice V. Narasingh observed that ignoring binding judicial directions disrupts the hierarchy of courts and weakens the administration of justice.
Cheque Bounce Complaint Led to Dispute
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Opposite Party No. 2 against Sri Ranjit Sahoo @ Ranjeet Kumar Sahoo before the JMFC, Jajpur Road. The complaint alleged offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It related to the dishonour of a cheque worth Rs. 2,50,407.
According to the records, the complainant sent a demand notice through registered post on December 6, 2024. However, the complaint was filed on January 10, 2025, without waiting for acknowledgment of the notice or completion of the statutory period.
Petitioner Challenged the Complaint
The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to quash the proceedings. He argued that the complaint was premature. According to the petitioner, it violated the requirements contained in proviso (b) and the third proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act.
Proviso (b) requires the payee or holder in due course to issue a written demand notice within 30 days of receiving information about cheque dishonour. The third proviso further states that an offence is committed only if the drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receiving the notice.
High Court Earlier Directed Trial Court to Decide Maintainability
Earlier, the High Court allowed the petitioner to raise the issue of maintainability before the trial court. At the same time, it specifically directed the Magistrate to examine and decide that issue.
Following the order, the petitioner filed an application before the JMFC, Jajpur Road seeking dismissal of the complaint on maintainability grounds. However, the Magistrate rejected the application. The court held that the petitioner had not raised the objection at the initial stage. It also noted that the trial had already progressed to recording the accused’s statement. The Magistrate instead permitted the petitioner to raise the issue at a later stage.
High Court Finds Magistrate Ignored Binding Directions
The petitioner challenged the Magistrate’s order through CRLREV No. 155 of 2026. Justice V. Narasingh held that the trial court was obligated to decide the maintainability issue before proceeding further.
The Court emphasized that subordinate courts may independently decide legal issues. Nevertheless, they cannot disregard procedural directions issued by superior courts. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004), the Bench held that the Magistrate had breached judicial discipline by refusing to follow the High Court’s earlier order.
The Court observed that allowing subordinate courts to ignore binding directions would erode public confidence in the judicial system. It described such conduct as “judicial harakiri.” The Orissa High Court maintainability cheque bounce case therefore underscored the importance of maintaining judicial hierarchy and procedural discipline.
Impugned Order Set Aside
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order passed by the JMFC, Jajpur Road. It directed the trial court to hear arguments on maintainability without delay. The Magistrate was further instructed to record a clear finding on that issue before taking any further steps in the cheque bounce proceedings.
