Back
VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Atamjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
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”).
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.
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
Dishonour of cheque – Question regarding time barred nature of an underlying debt or liability in proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act is a mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be dec....
The limitation period for a debt should start from the expiry of the period agreed upon for repayment, and the issue of whether a cheque was issued for a time-barred debt is a matter of evidence.
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, Section 139 of N.I. Act, includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability, which is a rebuttal one.
A debtor's issuance of a cheque acknowledges a debt; questions of enforceability or time-bar must be determined through evidence, not prior to trial.
The nature of the debt must be proven during trial, and there is a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque.
The legal enforceability of a debt, including whether it is time-barred, is a question of fact requiring trial evidence, and cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 is actionable regardless of claims of stop payment or misplaced cheque, with legal presumptions favoring existence of debt or liability.
The issue of whether a cheque was issued for a time-barred debt is a matter for evidence and cannot be adjudicated before the court.
A cheque issued acknowledges a legally enforceable liability, regardless of limitation periods.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
