Sumit Bansal vs M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another

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 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]