Mudra Developers vs M/S Aashirvad Infra Developers

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioners/accused challenged the order dated 04-12-2025 passed by the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, rejecting the revision against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vth Court, Mangalore, dated 26-09-2024, whereby cognizance was taken of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and C.C. No.1310 of 2024 was registered, upon a cheque for ₹10 lakhs being returned unpaid on account of stop-payment instructions.

The petitioners contended that under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Magistrate was mandatorily required to issue notice to the accused, hear them, and only thereafter take cognizance of the offence, and that any deviation from this procedure vitiated the cognizance order. It was further argued that Section 4 of the BNSS makes its procedure mandatory for all offences under other laws including the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that since the Act contains no special procedure for taking cognizance, the BNSS provisions are fully applicable.

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework under Sections 4, 5, 223 and 531 of the BNSS in the context of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to determine whether the mandatory requirement under the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS to give the accused an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance applies to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Catchwords: Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 · Section 138 · dishonour of cheque · stop payment · cognizance · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 · Section 223 · opportunity of hearing to accused before cognizance · Section 4 BNSS · Section 5 BNSS · special law · procedure · criminal revision · Karnataka High Court