Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ATAMJIT SINGH versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Decided
22 January 2024

Citations

Official
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1179 · 2024 INSC 84
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 1180

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”).

p. 1180

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.

p. 1180

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”).

p. 1181

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.

p. 1181

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.”

p. 1181

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.

p. 1182

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.

p. 1182

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.

p. 1182