Meghalaya HC dismisses petition, rules cheque bounce cases exempt from pre-cognisance notice requirement

The High Court of Meghalaya on March 16 dismissed a criminal petition challenging a summons issued in a cheque dishonour case, holding that Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) does not apply to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner, Banteilang Nongmalieh, had challenged a show cause notice issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nongpoh, Ri-Bhoi District, vide order dated December 19, 2024, in CR Case No. 94 of 2024. The complaint had been filed by the respondent, Bendar Rani, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, which deals with the dishonour of cheques.

The petitioner's core argument was that the Magistrate had failed to comply with Section 223 of the BNSS — a provision that requires a notice or opportunity of hearing to be given to an accused before cognisance is taken of a complaint. Counsel for the petitioner argued that this non-compliance was sufficient ground to quash the summons and the proceeding.

The respondent's counsel countered that the NI Act, being a special statute, overrides the general procedure prescribed under the BNSS, and that Section 223 has no application in such cases.

Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere, who presided over the matter, agreed with the respondent. The court referred to the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Ashok v. Fayaz Aahmad (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 490), which had held that "since Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is a special enactment... there is no need for the Magistrate to give an opportunity of being heard to the accused before taking cognisance."

More significantly, the court noted that the Supreme Court itself had endorsed this view in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069), where it was directed that "there shall be no requirement to issue summons to the accused in terms of Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, i.e., at the pre-cognisance stage."

The petitioner had also argued that the word "shall" used in the Supreme Court's direction indicated the ruling was prospective in nature, meaning it would apply only to future cases. The High Court rejected this contention. It observed that the BNSS is primarily a procedural law, and given the stage of the proceedings and the settled non-applicability of Section 223 to NI Act cases, the argument of prospective application could not be sustained.

Finding no merit in the petitioner's submissions, the court declined to interfere with the Magistrate's order and dismissed the petition. It noted that all contentions of parties on the merits of the underlying dispute remain open.