High Court U/S.482 CrPC Cannot Conduct Roving Enquiry At Pre-Trial Stage To Ascertain Whether Cheque Was Issued For Discharge Of Debt Not Merited: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against an order of the Patna High Court quashing the entire proceedings arising out of a criminal complaint case registered under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “Having regard to the aforesaid decisions of this Court as also the provisions of Section 139 of the N.I. Act, we are of the considered view that the High Court committed an error by conducting a roving enquiry, at the pre-trial stage, as regards the cheque being issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Such an exercise, in our view, was not merited in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code more so when the complaint allegations disclosed that the cheque was issued for discharge of liability.”

AOR Abhikalp Pratap Singh represented the Appellant while Advocate Namita Kumari represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the first respondent by alleging that the first respondent took delivery of goods from the complainant and in lieu thereof issued cheque of Rs 20,00,000. When the complainant presented the said cheque with its banker for collection, the same was returned unpaid with a remark of insufficient funds in the drawer’s account. The complainant thereafter met the first respondent who assured that if the cheque is presented after a week, it would be honored. In consequence, the cheque was re-presented but it was again returned unpaid. As a result, a legal notice of demand was sent to the first respondent. Since the payment was not made within the stipulated period, the complaint was filed.

The Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint and summoned the first respondent under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Aggrieved by the summoning order, the first respondent filed an application under Section 482 of the Code, before the High Court, which was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench reiterated that while considering a prayer to quash the criminal complaint and the consequential proceedings at the threshold, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint along with materials in support thereof, make out a prima facie case to proceed against the accused or not. “No doubt, in exceptional circumstances, the Court may take notice of attending circumstances to conclude that continuance of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or where quashing of the proceedings is necessary to secure the ends of justice”, the order read.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the necessary ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act were disclosed by the complaint, warranting issuance of process to the accused (i.e., the first respondent).

The Bench further stated, “However, the High Court, in its jurisdiction under Section 482, proceeded to test whether the cheque was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. In our view, such an exercise was unwarranted because, under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, there is a presumption that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence led in trial. A fortiori, the said issue can appropriately be decided either at the trial, or later, upon conclusion of trial, by the appellate/ revisional court.”

Considering that the necessary ingredients of Section 138 were prima facie made out from the complaint allegations, the Bench held that neither the summoning order nor the complaint could have been quashed by the High Court at the pre-trial stage.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the order of the High Court and restored the criminal complaint on the file of the concerned Magistrate.

Cause Title: M/S Sri Om Sales v. Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Patel (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1474)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Abhikalp Pratap Singh

Respondent: Advocates Namita Kumari, Atul Kumar, Saswat Adhyapak, AOR Abid Ali Beeran P, AOR Manish Kumar, Advocates Divyansh Mishra, Kumar Saurav

Click here to read/download Judgment