The Jammu and Kashmir High Court clarifies that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not bar magistrates from issuing pre-cognizance notices under Section 223 BNSS in cheque bounce cases. Learn how this decision impacts legal procedures under the NI Act.

J&K High Court Clarifies Section 142 NI Act: Pre-Cognizance Notices Under BNSS Are Lawful

In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) does not prevent Magistrates from complying with the pre-cognizance requirements stated in Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Background of the Case: Mohd Afzal Beigh vs Noor Hussain

In the case of Mohd Afzal Beigh vs Noor Hussain, the petitioner challenged a non-bailable warrant issued by a Judicial Magistrate in response to a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act — which deals with cheque dishonour.

The Magistrate had earlier issued a pre-cognizance notice before proceeding with the warrant. The petitioner argued that this violated the mandate of Section 142, which requires cognizance to be taken only on a written complaint by the payee, thereby bypassing BNSS procedures.

Court’s Interpretation of Section 142 NI Act

Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani emphasized that Section 142, although beginning with a non-obstante clause, does not prohibit the use of BNSS provisions such as Section 223. Instead, these procedures are complementary and justice-oriented, aimed at offering a fair preliminary hearing to the accused.

The Court ruled that pre-cognizance notices under Section 223 BNSS are lawful and enhance procedural fairness — even in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act.

Comparison with Previous Criminal Code

The Court noted that unlike Section 200 of the CrPC, the BNSS includes explicit provisions for issuing pre-cognizance notices. This new legal framework helps Magistrates consider valid defenses early in the process and strengthens procedural transparency.

Court’s Stance on the Warrant Issuance

The High Court found that issuing a non-bailable warrant at the pre-cognizance stage was excessive. It stated that the Magistrate should have considered a bailable warrant or alternative methods of summoning. Therefore, the warrant was invalidated, but the petitioner was ordered to appear before the Magistrate for further proceedings.

Section 143 NI Act and Efficient Trial Mechanisms

Referring to Section 143 of the NI Act, the Court highlighted the option for Magistrates to adopt summons trial procedures for complex cheque bounce cases. The law recommends a six-month disposal timeframe to reduce pendency.

The Court also encouraged the use of mediation or Lok Adalat settlements to handle cases efficiently, recognizing that cheque bounce issues are civil wrongs with criminal consequences.

Priority Sector Litigation: A Call for Speedy Disposal

Cases filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act are classified as priority sector litigation. The High Court directed jurisdictional courts to expedite such cases to reduce delays and ensure justice is served promptly.

Administrative Recommendations by the Court

The Court also instructed that this order be forwarded to the Registrar General and circulated among Judicial Magistrates across the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh for better legal awareness and uniform implementation.

Conclusion: Upholding Justice Through Harmonized Legal Procedures

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s decision in Mohd Afzal Beigh vs Noor Hussain reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to justice by harmonizing older laws like the Negotiable Instruments Act with modern procedural reforms introduced under the BNSS. By clarifying that Section 142 NI Act does not preclude pre-cognizance notices under Section 223 BNSS, the Court has provided critical guidance for Magistrates handling cheque bounce cases.

This ruling not only strengthens the procedural foundation of such cases but also encourages a more fair and timely resolution of disputes through summons trials, mediation, and Lok Adalat mechanisms. The decision ensures that justice remains accessible, efficient, and in line with contemporary legal standards across Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh.