Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000141-000141 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 36370/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on distinct‐cheque causes of action and limits of quashing under Section 482 CrPC; overrules HC quashing of Complaint Case No. 3298/2019 |
| Type of Law | Criminal |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that under Section 138 NI Act each dishonour of a distinct cheque—drawn on different accounts or presented on different dates—gives rise to its own cause of action once the statutory sequence (presentation, dishonour, notice, non-payment) is complete. Under Section 482 CrPC, disputed questions of fact (e.g., whether one set of cheques substituted another) cannot be resolved at the quashing stage. The High Court therefore erred in quashing Case No. 3298/2019 but correctly refused to quash the remaining complaints, which prima facie disclosed all ingredients of the offence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The parties entered into an Agreement to Sell on 07.11.2016 for three commercial units for Rs 1,72,21,200 (principal) and Rs 35,00,000 (appreciation). Respondents issued two post-dated firm cheques and, as personal guarantee, two post-dated cheques each for the same amounts. Personal cheques (5–6 Dec 2018) and firm cheques (15–17 Dec 2018) were dishonoured. The complainant filed five separate Section 138 complaints corresponding to distinct cheque instruments and presentation dates. The Delhi High Court quashed one complaint (3298/2019) as abusive multiplicity and declined to quash the others. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Overrules | High Court order quashing Complaint Case No. 3298/2019 |
| Follows | Bhajan Lal; Neeharika Infrastructure; Kusum Ingots; M.M.T.C. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that each distinct cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act generates its own cause of action, even if drawn under the same underlying agreement.
- Affirms that High Courts under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash complaints by resolving disputed facts (e.g., alternative or substitution cheques) at the threshold.
- Reinforces the statutory presumption of liability under Section 139 NI Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the drawer only at trial.
- Emphasises that quashing petitions must show no prima facie offence or manifest abuse of process; mere multiplicity of proceedings for different instruments is insufficient.
- Enables practitioners to resist quashing applications based on arguments of estoppel or transaction identity where cheques differ in account or date.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Recalled the scope of High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Bhajan Lal; Neeharika): no mini trial, exercise sparingly when no offence is disclosed or process abused.
- Held that each dishonour of a discrete cheque instrument—whether firm-drawn or personally guaranteed—gives rise to a separate offence under Section 138 NI Act once presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are complete (Kusum Ingots).
- Observed that disputed factual issues (e.g., whether personal guarantee cheques substituted firm cheques) cannot be decided at the quashing stage.
- Concluded the High Court erred in quashing Complaint Case No 3298/2019; the complaint on its face disclosed all ingredients of Section 138 and must proceed.
- Upheld the High Court’s refusal to quash the other three complaints, each of which prima facie satisfied Section 138 requirements and invoked the statutory presumption under Section 139.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Complainant)
- Respondents never disputed issuance, presentation, dishonour, or underlying liability.
- Two distinct sets of cheques (firm’s and personal) were separate instruments; quashing on “multiplicity” was unsound.
- Whether cheques were alternative securities involves disputed fact for trial, not quashing stage.
Respondents
- Total claimed across five complaints (Rs 5.19 Cr) exceeds underlying liability (Rs 2.07 Cr).
- Complainant estopped from filing firm-account complaint after pursuing personal-account cheques.
- Entire amounts were returned; no liability remains.
Factual Background
Parties executed an Agreement to Sell on 07 Nov 2016 for three commercial units at a total consideration of Rs 1.72 Cr plus Rs 0.35 Cr as appreciation. Failure to register by 30 Sep 2018 triggered refund plus compensation. Respondents first issued the firm’s cheques (Nos. 057140, 057141) and, by personal guarantee, two cheques (Nos. 114256, 114257) dated 30 Sep 2018. Personal cheques were presented on 05–06 Dec 2018 and dishonoured; firm’s cheques on 15–17 Dec 2018 and dishonoured. The complainant served statutory notices and filed five separate Section 138 complaints for distinct cheque instruments and dishonour dates. The Delhi High Court quashed one complaint and refused to quash the others.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 138 NI Act: Offence for dishonour of cheque once drawn for discharge of liability, presented within validity, returned dishonoured, followed by notice and non-payment.
- Section 139 NI Act: Presumption of liability on drawer that cheque was issued for debt or liability, rebuttable only at trial.
- Section 482 CrPC: High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary, sparingly exercised where no offence is prima facie made out or process is abused; courts must avoid deciding disputed facts at this stage.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions (overturned Delhi High Court order)