TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kayala Geetanjali, Adv., Mr. Anish Singh, Adv. 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 Delhi ['High Court'] in the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['Cr.PC'] seeking quashing of a set of four complaints instituted under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ['NI Act']. 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. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. The record discloses that the parties had entered into an Agreem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 those instruments were issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt would be a matter of trial. 15. Bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny 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. (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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 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 considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent No. 2 from his personal account, the cheques 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t(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 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) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 favou....