ATAMJIT SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

          [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1179 : 2024 INSC 84

                      Atamjit Singh
                           v.
               State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
              (Criminal Appeal no. 516 of 2024)
                       22 January 2024
  [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

                   Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order passed
by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning Respondent No. 2
in relation to commission of offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the premise that as on the
date of the issuance of the summoning order, the underlying debt
and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred.

                          Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope of interference by the High
Court in proceedings u/s.138 of the NI Act qua allegedly time
barred debt at the stage of issuance of summons, whilst
exercising its jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC.
Held: Classification of the underlying debt or liability as being
barred by limitation is a question that must be decided based on
the evidence adduced by the parties – Question regarding time
barred nature of an underlying debt or liability in proceedings
u/s.138 of the NI Act is a mixed question of law and fact which
ought not to be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction
u/s.482 CrPC. [Para 7]

                        Case Law Cited
     Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha, Crl. Appeal Nos.
     1706-1761 of 2022 – relied on.

                          List of Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
1180                                                        [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                            List of Keywords
     Quashing; Summons; Summoning order; Debt; Liability; Time
     barred; Scope of interference; Limitation; Mixed question of
     law and fact.

                           Case Arising From

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.516
     of 2024.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2022 of the High Court
     of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMC No.556 of 2019.
                        Appearances for Parties

     Sudeep Sehgal, Sandeep Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Vikramjit Banerjee, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Bharat Sood, Saransh
     Kumar, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Shaurya Rai, Madhav Sinhal, Ms.
     Deeksha Ladi Kakar, Advs. for the Respondents.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 ORDER
1.   Leave granted.
2.   This is an appeal instituted at the instance of the original complainant
     of a complaint lodged under inter alia Section 138 of the Negotiable
     Instruments Act, 1881 (the “NI Act”) (the “Underlying Complaint”)
     assailing an order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the High Court of
     Delhi (the “High Court”) in CRL. M.C. No. 556 of 2019 whereunder
     the High Court quashed an order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the
     Metropolitan Magistrate -10, South-East, Saket Court (the “Trial
     Court”) summoning Mr. Amrit Sandhu Coaster/Respondent No. 2 in
     relation to the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the
     NI Act (the “Impugned Order”).
3.   The High Court by way of the Impugned Order deemed it appropriate
     to quash the underlying proceedings on the principal premise that as
     on the date of the issuance of the summoning order, the underlying
     debt and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.                                                             1181

               Atamjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.


4.   Prima-facie from the materials placed before us, it is revealed that
     pursuant to various transactions entered into by and between the
     (i) Appellant; (ii) Respondent No. 2; and (iii) Jasween Sandhu i.e.,
     Accused No. 2 in the Underlying Complaint, allegedly pertaining to year
     2011,the Appellant was owed a sum of approximately Rs.20,10,000/-
     (Rupees Twenty Lakh Ten Thousand). Accordingly Respondent No.
     2 issued a cheque bearing number 329623 dated 06.03.2017 drawn
     on Syndicate Bank, Branch West Punjabi Bagh, Central Market, New
     Delhi-110026 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) in
     favour of the appellant (the “Subject Cheque”).
5.   Upon a perusal of the Impugned Judgement, it is disclosed that
     High Court has relied upon (i) the Assured Returns Agreement
     dated 16.09.2011; and (ii) other receipts issued by the Appellant to
     Respondent No. 2, all of which pertain to transaction(s) entered into in
     the year 2011 to conclude that in the absence of an acknowledgment
     of any underlying debt between 2011 and the date of issuance of
     the Subject Cheque i.e., 06.03.2017, the underlying debt could not
     be held to be legally enforceable debt or liability on account of being
     barred by limitation. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances,
     the prosecution of Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the NI
     Act was held to be improper; and accordingly, by way of impugned
     judgment, the High Court quashed the summoning order issued by
     the Trial Court; and the Underlying Complaint.
6.   At the threshold, it would be apposite to refer to decisions of this
     Court in Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha, Criminal Appeal Nos.
     1760-1761 of 2022 whereunder this Court has opined on the scope
     of interference by the High Court in proceedings under 138 of the
     NI Act qua an allegedly time barred debt at the stage of issuance
     of summons, whilst exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
     the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the “CrPC”). The operative
     paragraph in Yogesh Jain (Supra) has been reproduced as under:
           “8. Once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonoured
           a statutory notice is issued, it is for the Accused to dislodge
           the legal presumption available Under Sections 118 and
           139 reply of the N.I. Act. Whether the cheque in question
           had been issued for a time barred debt or not, itself
           prima facie, is a matter of evidence and could not
           have been adjudicated in an application filed by the
           Accused Under Section 482 of the CrPC.”
1182                                                         [2024] 1 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


7.   From a perusal of legal position enunciated above, it is clear that
     the classification of the underlying debt or liability as being barred by
     limitation is a question that must be decided based on the evidence
     adduced by the parties. We agree with aforesaid opinion. Undoubtedly,
     the question regarding the time barred nature of an underlying debt
     or liability in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is a mixed
     question of law and fact which ought not to be decided by the High
     Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
8.   Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the Impugned Order is set
     aside. The proceedings emanating from the Underlying Complaint
     i.e., CC No. 6437 of 2017 is restored to the file of the Trial Court.
9.   Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No order as to costs.


     Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose           Result of the case:
                                                              Appeal allowed.