Supreme Court of India
SUMIT BANSALversusM/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 40
- Decided
- 8 January 2026
- Bench
- SANJAY KAROL
Holding
Each dishonour of a distinct cheque constitutes a separate cause of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the High Court cannot quash such complaints under Section 482 of the CrPC without a trial.
Summary
The complainant, Sumit Bansal, entered into a sale agreement with MGI Developers and its proprietor Manoj Goyal, paying the full consideration. When the sale deeds were not executed, the parties issued several cheques—both from the firm and personally by the proprietor—which were subsequently dishonoured and statutory notices were served. Five separate criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed, each relating to distinct cheques presented on different dates. The Delhi High Court quashed one of the complaints (Case No. 3298/2019) on the ground that it duplicated the liability already addressed in another complaint, invoking its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court held that each dishonoured cheque gives rise to a separate cause of action and that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the complaint without a trial. Consequently, the quashing order was set aside and the complaint restored, while the other complaints were left to proceed to trial. The lead appeal was allowed and the companion appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 on the basis that it pertained to the same underlying liability as Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019, thereby constituting a ‘mini trial’ prohibited under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against Respondent No.2 arising out of Complaint Cases No. 2823 of 2019, 13508 of 2019 and 743 of 2020.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138, s. 141, s. 142
Headnote
Issue for Consideration a) Whether the High Court was right in quashing Complaint Case No.3298 of 2019 and the consequential summoning order dated 06.03.2019 against respondent nos.1 and 2 herein arising out of the dishonour of the firm’s cheque Nos.057140 and 057141, on the ground that same underlying liability for which another complaint i.e., Complaint Case No.2823 of 2019 had already been instituted and whether the same would not amount to conducting a ‘mini trial’ which is clearly prohibited under the scheme of s.482 of the Cr.PC; and b) Whether the High Court
Subjects
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Mini trialPower to quash criminal proceedingsDishonour of chequeComplaintStatutory noticeFailure to paySeparate cause of actionDishonoured separatelyIndependent statutory noticeDisputed question of fact
Judgment
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 107 : 2026 INSC 40
Sumit Bansal
v.
M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2026)
08 January 2026
[Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
a) Whether the High Court was right in quashing Complaint Case
No.3298 of 2019 and the consequential summoning order dated
06.03.2019 against respondent nos.1 and 2 herein arising out of
the dishonour of the firm’s cheque Nos.057140 and 057141, on
the ground that it related to the same underlying liability for which
another complaint i.e., Complaint Case No.2823 of 2019 had
already been instituted and whether the same would not amount
to conducting a ‘mini trial’ which is clearly prohibited under the
scheme of s.482 of the Cr.PC; and b) Whether the High Court
erred in not quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent
no.2 arising out of Complaint Case No.2823 of 2019, Complaint
Case No.13508 of 2019 and Complaint Case No.743 of 2020.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 – Parties entered into an Agreement to
Sell dated 07.11.2016 in respect of three commercial units –
The total sale consideration agreed between the parties was
Rs.1,72,21,200/- was admittedly paid by the complainant to
the proprietorship firm – Upon the failure of respondent nos.1
(firm) and 2 (proprietor) to execute the Sale Deed(s), respondent
no.1 issued cheques, which were returned dishonored – A total
of five complaint cases came to be filed by the complainant
against the same set of accused, each complaint relating to
distinct cheque instruments and separate dates of presentation
and dishonour: (i) Complaint Case No.2823/2019; (ii) Complaint
Case No.3298/2019; (iii) Complaint Case No.13508/2019;
(iv) Complaint Case No.740/20204; and (v) Complaint Case
No.743/2020, the last two arising out of the same set of
* Author
108 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
transactions – Respondents filed petitions u/s.482 CrPC before
the High Court seeking quashing of the complaints and the
summoning orders – The High Court quashed the complaint
relating to the firm’s cheques (Complaint Case No.3298 of
2019) in entirety, and also partially quashed the complaint
relating to the personal cheques (Complaint Case No.2823
of 2019) – Correctness:
Held: In Complaint case 3298 of 2019, having perused the
impugned judgment of High Court qua quashing of Complaint Case
No.3298 of 2019, this Court is unable to concur with the reasoning
reached by the High Court – It is well settled that u/s.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 s.138 of the NI Act does not bar
prosecution in such circumstances – 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 – The
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court u/s.482 of the Cr.PC cannot
be used to decide such disputed issues – This Court is of the view
that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and was not justified
in quashing Complaint Case No.3298 of 2019 – As far as other
complaint cases i.e. Complaint Case No.743 of 2020, Complaint
Case No.13508 of 2019 and Complaint Case No.2823 of 2019
are concerned, 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
issued and dishonoured on different dates in 2018 and 2019, each
followed by independent statutory notices and complaint – On
a careful reading of the ingredients required for commission of
offence u/s.138 of the NI Act, this Court finds that the record clearly
indicates that the cheques were dishonoured, statutory notices
were served, cheques were returned, and the summons were
thereafter issued – On such material, this Court is of the view that
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 109
Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
the complaint prima facie stands – Any disputed question of fact
qua the offence alleged must be done during the trial – Thus, 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 – 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.
[Paras 30, 34, 35, 38, 40, 44, 46]
Case Law Cited
State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1990] Supp.
3 SCR 259 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2021] 4 SCR
1044 : (2021) 19 SCC 401; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar
Peterson Securities Ltd. and Others [2000] 1 SCR 1120 : (2000)
2 SCC 745 – relied on.
M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Another v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P)
Ltd. and Another [2001] Supp. 5 SCR 265 : (2002) 1 SCC 234 –
referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881; Legally Enforcealble Debt.
List of Keywords
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Mini trial;
Power to quash criminal proceedings; Dishonour of cheque;
Complaint; Statutory notice; Failure to pay; Separate cause of
action; Dishonoured separately; Independent statutory notice;
Disputed question of fact.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
141 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2025 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMC No. 8002 of 2023
With
Criminal Appeal No(s). 142, 143, and 144 of 2026
110 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., Sameer Rohatgi, Namit Suri,
Rameezuddin Raja, Ms. Pepakayala Geetanjali, Anish Singh, Tejas
Patel, Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Akul Krishnan.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., Tejas Patel, Akul Krishnan,
Ms. Sakshi Apurva, Sameer Rohatgi, Namit Suri, Rameezuddin
Raja, Ms. Pepakayala Geetanjali, Anish Singh.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present batch of Appeals arises out of two separate judgments
dated 17.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi1 in the petitions
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732
seeking quashing of a set of four complaints instituted under Section
138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 18813.
3. The complainant in all the four complaints is one Shri Sumit Bansal,
who is appellant in the lead Appeal and respondent in the connected
Appeals, whereas the accused are M/s. MGI Developers and
Promoters, a proprietorship concern, and its proprietor Shri Manoj
Goyal, who are the respondents in the lead Appeal and the appellants
in the connected Appeals. For our convenience in adjudicating all the
Appeals, Shri Sumit Bansal will be referred to as ‘the complainant’,
whereas M/s. MGI Developers and Promoters and Shri Manoj Goyal
will be referred to as ‘Respondent No. 1’ and ‘Respondent No. 2’
respectively.
1 ‘High Court’
2 ‘Cr.PC’
3 ‘NI Act’
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 111
Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The record discloses that the parties had entered into an Agreement
to Sell dated 07.11.2016 in respect of three commercial units bearing
Nos. S-1, S-2 and S-3 situated in a commercial project named
“MGI Mansion”, located at Khasra Nos. 966 and 967, Village Noor
Nagar, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The total sale
consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 1,72,21,200/-
(Rupees One Crore Seventy-two Lakh Twenty-one Thousand and
Two Hundred only), which was admittedly paid by the complainant
to the proprietorship firm. Under the terms of the Agreement, the
vendor was obliged to execute and register the Sale Deed(s) in
favour of the complainant on or before 30.09.2018, and in the event
of failure to do so, the entire amount received was to be refunded
to the complainant together with an appreciation amount by way of
compensation.
5. On 27.07.2018, Respondent No.2 executed a personal guarantee
undertaking to ensure refund of the amount together with the
appreciation amount in case the sale deeds were not executed to the
complainant within the stipulated period. To secure the said liability,
he also undertook to issue personal cheques corresponding to the
firm’s cheques, to provide an alternative mechanism for repayment.
6. Upon the failure of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to execute the Sale
Deed(s) by 30.09.2018, Respondent No. 1 issued two cheques
of that date, namely Cheque No. 057140 for Rs. 1,72,21,200/-
representing the principal consideration, and Cheque No. 057141
for Rs. 35,00,000/- representing the appreciation amount. In
addition, in terms of his personal guarantee, Respondent No. 2
issued two personal cheques, also dated 30.09.2018, being Cheque
No. 114256 for Rs. 1,72,21,200/- and Cheque No. 114257 for
Rs. 35,00,000/-. These cheques were handed over to the complainant
with an understanding that the personal cheques could be presented
earlier, while the firm’s cheques would be available for presentation
later.
7. Acting on such understanding, the complainant presented the personal
cheques for encashment on 05.12.2018. However, both the cheques
were returned dishonoured on 06.12.2018 with the bank’s remark
“Exceeds Arrangement”. Subsequently, the complainant presented
the firm’s cheques on 15.12.2018, which too were returned unpaid
112 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on 17.12.2018 with the remark “Funds Insufficient”. The complainant
thereafter issued a statutory notice dated 21.12.2018 to all the
accused persons demanding payment within the statutory period,
but despite service, no payment was made.
8. Consequently, the complainant instituted the first two complaints
under Section 138 of the NI Act. The first was Complaint Case No.
2823 of 2019, filed on 25.01.2019, in respect of the personal cheque
Nos. 114256 and 114257 issued by Respondent No. 2, wherein
cognizance was taken and summons issued on 20.06.2019. The
second was Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019, filed on 30.01.2019,
in respect of the firm’s cheques Nos. 057140 and 057141, for which
the summoning order was passed on 06.03.2019.
9. Thereafter, in continuation of the earlier transaction, Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 again issued fresh cheques. On 28.02.2019,
Respondent No. 1 issued Cheque No. 562629 for Rs. 35,00,000/-,
and Respondent No. 2 issued Cheque No. 114275 for the same
amount, again towards the appreciation sum. Cheque No. 114275,
when presented on 11.03.2019, was dishonoured on 12.03.2019
with the endorsement “Exceeds Arrangement”. Respondent No. 1’s
cheque No. 562629, presented on 08.05.2019, was also dishonoured
on 09.05.2019 with the remark “Funds Insufficient”. A statutory notice
having been issued and no payment made, the complainant filed
another complaint, Complaint Case No. 13508 of 2019, for which
cognizance and summoning were ordered on 17.08.2019.
10. Subsequently, on 31.07.2019, further cheques were issued in
relation to the same underlying transaction with Respondent No. 1
issued Cheque No. 562656 for Rs. 35,00,000/-, and Respondent
No. 2 issued Cheque No. 000084 for Rs. 35,00,000/-. These were
presented in October 2019 and were dishonoured on 28.10.2019 and
26.10.2019, respectively. The complainant issued statutory notices
dated 30.10.2019, and upon failure of payment, instituted two more
complaints being Complaint Case Nos. 740 of 2020 and 743 of 2020,
both filed on 09.01.2020, wherein cognizance and summoning orders
were passed on 24.11.2022.
11. In this manner, a total of five complaint cases came to be filed by the
complainant against the same set of accused, each complaint relating
to distinct cheque instruments and separate dates of presentation and
dishonour: (i) Complaint Case No. 2823/2019; (ii) Complaint Case
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 113
Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
No. 3298/2019; (iii) Complaint Case No. 13508/2019; (iv) Complaint
Case No. 740/20204; and (v) Complaint Case No.743/2020, the last
two arising out of the same set of transactions.
12. Aggrieved by the institution and continuation of the said criminal
complaints and the summoning orders passed thereafter, Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 preferred petitions before the High Court of Delhi under
Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashing of the complaints and
the summoning orders.
13. Vide its judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed in Crl.MC No. 7912 of
2023 and Crl.MC No. 8002 of 2023, the High Court, upon consideration
of the material, observed that the cheques which formed the basis
of the first two complaints (i.e., Complaint Case Nos. 2823 of 2019
and 3298 of 2019) were drawn and presented in respect of the same
underlying liability, namely, refund of the same sale consideration
under the Agreement to Sell dated 07.11.2016. The Court held that
the complainant could not simultaneously maintain two separate
complaints in respect of the same debt or liability, merely because
separate sets of cheques i.e., one issued in the name of the firm
and another personally by its proprietor, had been presented and
dishonoured. It was, thus, concluded that continuation of both
complaints would amount to parallel prosecution for the same cause
of action. On that reasoning, the High Court quashed the complaint
relating to the firm’s cheques (Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019)
in entirety, and also partially quashed the complaint relating to the
personal cheques (Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019) only insofar
as it concerned Smt. Kavita Rani Goyal, who was not a signatory to
the cheques nor shown to be involved in the transaction.
14. In a separate judgment dated 17.04.2025 passed in Crl.MC No. 2161
of 2024 and Crl.MC No. 7632 of 2023 as regard to the later complaints
(Complaint Case No. 13508 of 2019 and Complaint Case No. 743 of
2020) against both the respondents, the High Court noted that those
cheques were issued subsequently, on distinct dates, representing
independent and fresh causes of action upon successive dishonours.
The High Court, therefore, held that the same could not be said to
be barred by reason of multiplicity or identity of cause and declined
to quash those complaints at the threshold, observing that whether
4 This Complaint Case is not a subject-matter of the present Appeals.
114 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
those instruments were issued in discharge of legally enforceable
debt would be a matter of trial.
15. Being aggrieved, the complainant has preferred the present Appeal,
which is the lead matter, before this Court challenging the quashing
of Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 by the High Court, whereas
Respondent No. 2 has filed separate Appeals, which are companion
Appeals, assailing the refusal of the High Court to quash the other
complaints against him. The complainant did not challenge the order
insofar as it related to Smt. Kavita Rani Goyal, therefore, that portion
remains uncontested before us.
16. While issuing notice on the lead Appeal, preferred by the complainant,
this Court had stayed the effect and operation of the impugned
judgment dated 17.04.2025 in Crl.MC No. 8002 of 2023, whereby
the High Court had quashed Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019
against Respondent No. 2.
SUBMISSION OF PARTIES
17. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the impugned
judgment of the High Court failed to recognise that the respondents
throughout the litigation have nowhere disputed the issuance,
presentation and dishonour of the cheques and nor have denied
the underlying liability.
18. Learned counsel has submitted that the High Court erred in quashing
Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 against the respondents on the
ground that since the personal cheques issued by Respondent
No. 2 were already presented, the other cheques issued from the
firm’s account ought to have been returned. Learned counsel points
out that neither of the cheques were cancelled nor returned by the
complainant to the respondents. Therefore, learned counsel submits
that once the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are satisfied,
presumption of liability continues to exist against the respondents.
19. With respect to the Appeals filed by the respondents challenging the
High Court’s refusal to quash other complaint cases, learned counsel
for the complainant submits that the impugned judgment of the High
Court was correct in not quashing Complaint No. 2823 of 2019 as
regards Respondent No.2, Complaint Case No. 13508/2019, and
Complaint Case No. 743/2020, registered against the respondents.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 115
Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
20. Lastly, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the arguments
of the respondents that the payment has already been made to the
complainant is a disputed question of fact and the High Court was
right in not interfering with the same under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
21. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents has argued
that all the four complaints against them are not in conformity with
Section 138 of the NI Act. He points out that the principal amount in
the alleged Agreement dated 07.11.2016 was of Rs 1,72,21,200/- and
Rs 35,00,000/- as appreciation amount, however, the total amount
claimed in these five complaints goes to Rs 5,19,42,400/-.
22. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has argued that the
Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 was rightly quashed by the High
Court. He submits that the complainant had already exhausted his
remedy by instituting the personal cheque issued by Respondent
No.2 and, therefore, was barred by estoppel in instituting the other
cheques issued by the firm.
23. Lastly, with respect to the other complaints, learned senior counsel
for the respondents submits that no amount is due to be paid to the
complainant as the same is already returned. Therefore, he submits
that there exists no liability whatsoever of the respondents.
ANALYSIS
24. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the material on record.
25. The issues that arise for our consideration are:
a) Whether the High Court was right in quashing Complaint Case
No. 3298 of 2019 and the consequential summoning order dated
06.03.2019 against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein arising out
of the dishonour of the firm’s cheque Nos. 057140 and 057141,
on the ground that it related to the same underlying liability for
which another complaint i.e., Complaint Case No. 2823 of 2019
had already been instituted and whether the same would not
amount to conducting a ‘mini trial’ which is clearly prohibited
under the scheme of Section 482 of the Cr.PC; and
b) Whether the High Court erred in not quashing the criminal
proceedings against Respondent No. 2 arising out of Complaint
116 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case No. 2823 of 2019, Complaint Case No. 13508 of 2019
and Complaint Case No. 743 of 2020.
26. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is appropriate to recall
the settled legal principles which govern the exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. This
Court in catena of judgments has emphasised that the High Court
must avoid usurping the function of a Trial Court or conducting a
mini trial when disputed factual questions attend the maintainability
of a complaint. In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal
and Others5, a Division Bench of this Court had discussed about
the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.PC as follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we have given the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
5 (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 117
Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. In a much recent decision of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Others6, a three-
Judge Bench had held that the power to quash criminal proceedings
must be exercised sparingly, and only where the complaint, even if
accepted in full, discloses no offence or continuation would amount
to abuse of process of law. This Court had issued the following
directions to the High Courts to be kept in mind while exercising the
power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC:
6 (2021) 19 SCC 401
118 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether
the High Court would be justified in passing an interim
order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps
to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing
petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and
whether the High Court would be justified in passing the
order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps
to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final
report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the
criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers
under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
33.1….
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report
that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest
of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in
the context of death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which
is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6….
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8 to 33.11….
33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 119
Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits
of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted
to complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that
it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if
the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the investigating
officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the
learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
33.13 and 33.14….
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make
out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations
in the FIR.
…..”
(emphasis supplied)
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 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
A. 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. 121
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 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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. 123
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.
B. 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 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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;
7 (2000) 2 SCC 745
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 125
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:
8 (2002) 1 SCC 234
126 [2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“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. 127
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
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973"Sign in to search