Prabhat Sharma: Summons on Affidavit Met Section 202, SC

Cheque Bounce: Summons on Complainant's Affidavit Prima Facie Complied With Section 202 CrPC, Says Supreme Court

Prabhat Sharma v. Govind Mohan & Ors. Decided 27 October 2026

Published: 12 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Prabhat Sharma v. Govind Mohan & Ors., the Supreme Court took the prima facie view that the Allahabad High Court erred in setting aside a summoning order in a cheque-dishonour complaint, since the summons, issued on the complainant's evidence on affidavit, duly complied with Section 202 of the CrPC (Section 225 of the BNSS) (para 9). At the accused's suggestion it sent the dispute, over eight cheques totalling Rs.1.15 crores, to mediation, kept an earlier interim order in force and listed the matters on 08.01.2027 (paras 10-16).

Key holdings

Prima facie, the High Court's order setting aside the summons is erroneous (para 9).

The summons proceeded on the complainant's evidence on affidavit, so there was prima facie due compliance with Section 202 of the CrPC (para 9).

The complainant relied on the judgment reported as (2021) 16 SCC 116 on evidence on affidavit (para 6).

At the accused's suggestion and without prejudice, the parties go to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 06.11.2026; the first meeting is virtual (paras 10-13).

The interim order of 08.04.2026 continues; the matters are listed on 08.01.2027 (paras 15-16).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Over the dishonour of a cheque issued by respondent No.2, M/s. Sai Infra Solutions, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Aonla, District Bareilly, on 25.06.2025 (para 1). On 26.11.2025 the Magistrate, noting the complainant's affidavit, summoned respondent No.1, the firm's sole proprietor, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (para 1). The accused challenged the summons under Section 528 of the BNSS, arguing that as they lived outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction, the complainant and witnesses should first have been examined under Section 202 of the CrPC (Section 225 of the BNSS) (paras 2-3). On 11.02.2026 the High Court set aside the summoning order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision (paras 1, 4).

Court's Findings

The High Court set aside the summoning order of 26.11.2025 and remitted the complaint for a fresh decision, referring to In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 (para 4). This Court recorded that it appears from the impugned order that notice was not issued to the complainant before the High Court (para 3). The complainant relied on that judgment, reported as (2021) 16 SCC 116; the order quotes its holding that Section 202(2) of the CrPC is inapplicable to Section 138 complaints in respect of examining witnesses on oath, and that their evidence is to be permitted on affidavit (para 6). The accused's position was that detailed evidence, especially on the date of the legal notice and its service, should have been led in person before summons (para 8). The Court's prima facie view was that the impugned order is ‘erroneous’: the summoning order proceeded on the complainant's evidence on affidavit, so there was ‘due compliance’ with Section 202 of the CrPC (Section 225 of the BNSS) (para 9). It decided nothing finally: at the accused's suggestion, without prejudice to either side, it referred the parties to mediation (paras 10-12).

Legal Principle

The Court's prima facie view: where a summoning order in a cheque-dishonour complaint proceeds on the complainant's evidence on affidavit, there is due compliance with Section 202 of the CrPC (Section 225 of the BNSS) (para 9). This is not a final ruling; the special leave petitions remain pending (para 15).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For complainants in cheque cases, this order is a useful pointer, though only a prima facie one: where the Magistrate summoned the accused on the complainant's evidence on affidavit, the Court saw due compliance with Section 202 of the CrPC (Section 225 of the BNSS), even though the accused said they lived outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction, and called the High Court's contrary order erroneous (paras 2, 9). It is not a final ruling. The matters now go to mediation; the earlier interim order of 08.04.2026, whose terms this order does not set out, continues, and the Court will take the petitions up again on 08.01.2027 (paras 12-16).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 (2021) 16 SCC 116
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4, 6
Relied on by the petitioner-complainant for the holding, quoted in the order, that Section 202(2) CrPC is inapplicable to Section 138 complaints in respect of examining witnesses on oath and that the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted on affidavit; the High Court had also referred to it when setting aside the summoning order. The Court's prima facie view (para 9) that the summons duly complied with Section 202 does not name it.

Cheque Bounce: Summons on Complainant's Affidavit Prima Facie Complied With Section 202 CrPC, Says Supreme Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Why It Matters

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Supreme Court Sets Aside Remand in Cheque Bounce Case as Accused Never Claimed Prejudice

Mere Plea of Resignation No Ground to Quash Cheque Case Against Director Who Signed the Cheque: Supreme Court