S. 482 CrPC | High Court Cannot Quash Cheque Bounce Cases By Conducting Pre-Trial Enquiry Into Debt Or Liability : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 19) held that it is impermissible for the High Courts to quash cheque dishonour proceedings by undertaking a pre-trial enquiry into disputed facts, particularly when a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the complainant.

“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. As fulfillment of the necessary ingredients of Section 138 N.I. Act are prima facie made out from the complaint allegations, in our view, neither the summoning order nor the complaint could have been quashed by the High Court at the pre-trial stage.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Patna High Court's decision which quashed the cheque dishonor complaint in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court found the High Court failed to apply the settled position of law that when a prima facie case is made out from a complaint, it is impermissible to quash the case, by taking a roving inquiry into the disputed facts, that needs adjudication in a trial.

“The law is well settled 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. If upon reading the complaint allegations and perusing the materials filed in support thereof, a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused, the complaint cannot be quashed, particularly, by appreciating the evidence/ materials on record because the stage for such appreciation is at the trial.”, the Court reiterated.

Applying the law, the judgment authored by Justice Misra observed:

“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.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the criminal complaint in question is restored on the file of the concerned Magistrate and was ordered to be dealt with in accordance with law.

Cause Title: M/S SRI OM SALES VERSUS ABHAY KUMAR @ ABHAY PATEL & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1236

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. Ms. Namita Kumari, Adv. Mr. Saswat Adhyapak, Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv.