The suggestions made in the court were summarized as follows :
1. E-service of summons
Luthra submitted that summons in private complaints are the last to be served. Many cheque bounce cases are stuck due to delay in service of summons.
“There is a suggestion for a nodal agency for electronic service of summons. Nowadays everything is linked with Aadhaar. There is no reason why electronic service of summons should not be done”, Luthra submitted.
2. Attachment of bank accounts
If the person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or has concealed himself such that the warrant cannot be executed, Magistrates could order attachment of the bank accounts of the Accused to the extent of the cheque amount by passing an order under Section 83, CrPC.
3. Summary trial
Luthra next submitted that there is lack of clarity as to whether the trial in Section 138 cases are to be done following the summary trial procedure or summons trial procedure.
He pointed out that the provisions of the NI Act Sections 143 and 145, envisage a summary trial. The Supreme Court also directed in the 2017 decision “Meters and Instruments Pvt Ltd v Kanchan Gupta’ that summary trial procedure must be adopted in cheque cases. However, practice directions by High Courts are necessary.
4. Mandatory mediation
Mediation must be encouraged at every stage, right from post-cognizance stage.Cases pending at appellate or revisional stage must be send for mandatory mediation at least once.
“If it can be resolved(through mediation), why not?”, Luthra said.
5. Resolve the judicial confusion on Section 202 CrPC
Luthra next spoke about the urgent need to settle the judicial confusion regarding the applicability of Section 202 of Cr. PC to cheque bounce cases. The Section mandates that the Magistrate shall postpone the issue of process against the Accused, if the Accused is residing in a place beyond its territorial jurisdiction, until an enquiry is made for the purpose of deciding whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.
The SC in K S Joseph v. Philips Carbon Black, left this question open to be decided in an appropriate case. He submitted that trial in many cases numerous across the country are stayed on account of this confusion.
6. Joint trial of multiple cheque bounces relating to same loan transaction
Luthra submitted that Section 219 of the CrPC allows the joining of only three cases against an accused arising within one year. However, Section 220 CrPC allows the joint trial of offences arising out of the same transaction.
The bench had an engaging discussion with Luthra on the provisions of Sections 218, 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Luthra said that a “wholesome interpretation” of these provisions is necessary to provide for joint trial of multiple cheque cases.