Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
28. On these lines, it is apt clear that even though the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC are very wide, its conferment requires the High Court to be more cautious and diligent. While examining any complaint or FIR, the High Court exercising its power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the genuineness of the allegations made. The Court must only consider whether there exists any sufficient material to proceed against the accused or not.
29. As we have now discussed the trite law on the powers of High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, we will now individually deal with the facts of the present Appeals. Considering that there are two sets of Appeals before us, one by the complainant and other three by Respondent No. 2, we would be dealing both sets separately. 120 Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.10770 of 2025 (preferred by the complainant)
30. From the material on record, it is evident that the complainant was in possession of two cheques bearing nos. 057140 and 057141, both dated 30.09.2018, for Rs.1,72,21,200/- and Rs.35,00,000/- respectively, issued by Respondent No. 2 on behalf of the firm. The complainant asserts that, citing temporary financial constraints in the firm, Respondent No. 2 issued two additional cheques from his personal joint account (with his wife Smt. Kavita Rani Goyal) with nos. 114256 and 114257, also dated 30.09.2018, for the same amounts as a personal guarantee, to be invoked if repayment was sought prior to 15.12.2018. The complainant presented the personal cheques for encashment on 05.12.2018, which were dishonoured, and return memos were issued on 06.12.2018. Upon being apprised of the dishonour, the accused had expressed regret and advised the complainant to present the firm’s cheques, assuring their honour. When the firm’s cheques were presented for encashment, they were also dishonoured. This led to two complaints being filed, first was Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019, filed on 25.01.2019, in respect of the personal cheques Nos. 114256 and 114257, and the second was Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019, filed on 30.01.2019, in respect of the firm’s cheque Nos. 057140 and 057141.
31. The complainant is before us challenging the impugned judgment by which the High Court had quashed Complainant Case No. 3298 of 2019 registered against Respondent Nos.1 and 2. In dealing with the case of the complainant before us, it would be appropriate to advert to the observations made by the High Court in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment in Crl.MC Nos.7912/2023 and 8002/2023: “10. As pointed hereinabove, it is the case of the respondent himself in CRL.M.C. 7912/2023 that the cheques issued from the personal bank account of petitioner no. 1 (jointly held by petitioner nos. 1 and 2) were given as an option to the respondent in case he wanted the money to be credited in his account before the date as stated in the said complaint, i.e., 15.12.2018. In essence therefore, the cheques issued by petitioner no. 1 from his personal bank account were in lieu of the cheques issued by petitioner no. 1 from the bank account of the petitioner firm. In [2026] 2 S.C.R. Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another these circumstances the cheques issued by petitioner no. 1 on behalf of the petitioner firm in the first instance should either have been returned by the respondent and in any case, ought not to have been presented. There is absolutely no disclosure on behalf of the respondent in the complaint filed subsequently with respect to the cheques issued by petitioner no. 1 on behalf of the petitioner firm, i.e., in Complaint Case no. 3298/2019 (subject-matter of CRL. M.C. 8002/2023) with regard to the cheques already issued by petitioner no. 1 from his personal bank account. In view of the averments made in the complaints, there cannot be in any manner, doubt left that the respondent exercised his option to present the cheques issued from the personal bank account of the petitioner towards the personal guarantee for discharge of the liability. In these circumstances, the respondent cannot be permitted to present the other set of cheques issued from the bank account of the petitioner firm again for the same transaction. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, continuance of proceedings in Criminal Complaint no. 3298/2019 (subject matter of CRL.M.C. 8002/2023) would be an abuse of process of law and therefore, in the interest of justice, exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court is warranted in the present case.” (emphasis supplied)
32. From a bare perusal of the above observation of the High Court, it can be seen that one of the important factors that weighed in with the High Court while allowing the quashing of Complainant Case No. 3298 of 2019 against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was that firm’s cheques (Nos. 057140 and 057141) and the personal cheques (Nos. 114256 and 114257) issued by Respondent No. 2 represented the same liability under the Agreement to Sell dated 07.11.2016 and, therefore, two parallel prosecutions could not simultaneously stand. The High Court was of the view that the cheques issued by Respondent No. 2 from his personal bank account were in lieu of the cheques issued from the bank account of the firm and, therefore, once the complainant had exercised his option to present the cheques issued by Respondent No. 2 from his personal account, the cheques 122 issued from Respondent No. 1’s bank account ought not to have been presented later and they should have been returned back. The High Court had also highlighted that in Complainant Case No. 3298 of 2019 which was filed on 30.01.2019, there was no disclosure on the part of the complainant about the earlier Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019 filed on 25.01.2019 regarding the cheques issued by Respondent No. 2 from his personal bank account. In light of the above, the High Court had proceeded to quash Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019, holding that its continuation along with Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019 for the same transaction would be an abuse of process of law.
33. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), this Court had made it clear that quashing was to be permissible only where the complaint on its face fails to disclose any offence or where there is unimpeachable material demonstrating abuse of process of law. On these lines, having perused the impugned judgment of High Court qua quashing of Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019, we are unable to concur with the reasoning reached by the High Court. It is well settled that under Section 138 of the NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a cheque provided the statutory sequence of presentation, dishonour, notice, and failure to pay is complete. The fact that multiple cheques arise from one transaction will not merge them into a single cause of action. In the present case, the cheques forming the subject of the two complaints (Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019 and Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019) were distinct instruments drawn on different accounts, presented on different dates, dishonoured separately, and followed by independent statutory notices. The scheme of Section 138 of the NI Act does not bar prosecution in such circumstances.
34. Whether those cheques were issued as alternative or supplementary instruments, or represented fresh undertakings, is a disputed question of fact requiring evidence at the time of trial and cannot be resolved at the threshold. Questions such as whether the firm’s cheques were issued in substitution of the personal cheques, whether the parties treated them as alternative securities, and whether both were intended to be simultaneously enforceable, are all mixed questions of fact. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC cannot be used to decide such disputed issues. [2026] 2 S.C.R. Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
35. For these reasons, we are of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and was not justified in quashing Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 and the summoning order dated 06.03.2019. The complaint on its face discloses the ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and must proceed to trial. Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos.11262 of 2025, 11647 of 2025 and 11787 of 2025 (preferred by Respondent No.2)
36. We shall now turn to the three Appeals filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash Complaint Case No. 743 of 2020, Complaint Case No. 13508 of 2019 and Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019.
37. Before we delve into the correctness of the impugned judgment of the High Court qua the foregoing complaints, it is apposite for us to refer to the Agreement to Sell dated 07.11.2016, which acts as a base for this entire litigation. The relevant portion of the said Agreement is reproduced hereinbelow: “7a) That, in case the First Party is unable to get the Sale Deed of the said Commercial Unit(s) registered in favour of the Second Party till 30-09-2018, then the Second party shall be entitled to the refund of Full & Final Payment given against the said Commercial Unit(s). In such an eventuality, the First Party shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) Per day after 30-09-2018 which will be over & above the Full & Final payment amount. 7b) That the first party will also provide irrevocable Authority Letter in the name of Mr. Narinder Kumar Midha S/o Late Shri K.N. Midha R/o House No. 53, 2nd Floor, Road No.-42, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026, enabling him to execute the Power of Attorney, Sale Deed, Agreement to Sell, whichever is applicable and receive consideration/ Free transfer to third party for the said commercial units. 7c) That the First Party also confirms for an appreciation amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh only) to the Second Party if First Party will not be able to 124 deliver the mentioned commercial units in schedule course of time and a post-dated cheque no. 057141 drawn on Central Bank of India, Ghaziabad Dt. 30-09-2018 issued to Second Party.” (emphasis supplied)
38. The record clearly indicates that these complaints (Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019, Complaint Case No. 13508 of 2019 and Complaint Case No. 743 of 2020) arise out of cheques Nos. 114256, 114257, 562629 and 000084 respectively, as issued and dishonoured on different dates in 2018 and 2019, each followed by independent statutory notices and complaint. It is also an admitted fact that each of the above cheques were issued by Respondent No.2 over and above the cheques of the principal amount of Rs.1,72,21,200/- and the appreciation amount of Rs. 35,00,000/-.
39. At this point, it is imperative to refer to the decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. and Others7, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had highlighted the ingredients which are to be satisfied for making out a case under Section 138 of the NI Act. The relevant excerpt is reproduced hereinbelow: “10. On a reading of the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act it is clear that the ingredients which are to be satisfied for making out a case under the provision are: (i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability; (ii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (2000) 2 SCC 745 [2026] 2 S.C.R. Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another (iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.”
40. On a careful reading of the ingredients required for commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, we find that the record before us clearly indicates that the cheques, as provided above, were dishonoured, statutory notices were served, cheques were returned, and the summons were thereafter issued. On such material, we are of the view that the complaint prima facie stands. Any disputed question of fact qua the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act or any defence that Respondent No. 2 wants to raise against the offence alleged must be done during the trial.
41. One of the averments raised by the respondents is that the said cheques were presented illegally by the complainant despite receiving the entire amount already. Learned senior counsel for the respondents had argued that in fact the complainant had invested only Rs 66,50,000/- for which they have already returned Rs 97,00,000/-. Therefore, it is the case of the respondents that there exists no debt or liability.
42. However, we are of the view that the burden of proving whether there exists any debt or liability is something which must be discharged in trial. A bare perusal of Section 139 of the NI Act would indicate that once a cheque is issued in discharge of liability and dishonoured, a presumption of liability in favour of the complainant arises. The accused person is then required to rebut the presumption by raising facts that either there was no debt or liability when the cheque was drawn, or the cheque was not drawn in discharge of liability, or notice was not served in time. In this regard, we must refer to the decision in M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Another vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another8, wherein this Court had made the following observation on this aspect: (2002) 1 SCC 234 126 “17. There is therefore no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability was on the respondents. This they have to discharge in the trial. At this stage, merely on the basis of averments in the petitions filed by them the High Court could not have concluded that there was no existing debt or liability.” (emphasis supplied)
43. The statutory presumption attached to the issuance of a cheque, being one made in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, is required to be accorded due weight. Therefore, in circumstances where the accused approaches the Court seeking quashing of proceedings even before the commencement of trial, the Court must exercise circumspection and refrain from prematurely stifling the prosecution at the threshold, particularly by overlooking the legal presumption that operates in favour of the complainant.
44. For these reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in not quashing Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019, Complaint Case No.13508 of 2019 and Complaint Case No. 743 of 2020 registered against Respondent No. 2 herein. The foregoing complaints prima facie discloses the ingredients of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and must proceed to trial. CONCLUSION
45. In light of our aforesaid discussion and for the reasons above, we come to the following conclusion: a) The Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10770 of 2025 preferred by the complainant is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 17.04.2025 passed in Crl.MC No. 8002 of 2023 quashing Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 and the summoning order dated 06.03.2019, is set aside. Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 shall stand restored for trial before the concerned Trial Court. b) The Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11262 of 2025, 11647 of 2025 and 11787 of 2025 preferred by Respondent No. 2 are dismissed. [2026] 2 S.C.R. Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
46. All contentions of the parties are left open, which shall be decided by the Trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. We make it clear that none of the observations contained herein shall have a bearing on the main trial. The Trial Court shall independently arrive at its conclusion based on the evidence tendered before it. Result of the case: Crl.A.No.141 of 2026 is allowed. Crl.A.No. 142 of 2026, Crl.A. No. 143 of 2026 and Crl. A. No.144 of 2026 are dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan