Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Namit Suri, AOR Mr. Rameezudin Raja, Adv. Ms. Pepakayala Geetanjali, Adv. Mr. Anish Singh, Adv. Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv. Dr. Harshvir Pratapm Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tejas Patel, AOR Mr. Akul Krishnan, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Apurva, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tejas Patel, AOR Mr. Akul Krishnan, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Apurva, Adv. Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Namit Suri, AOR Mr. Rameezudin Raja, Adv. Ms. Pepakayala Geetanjali, Adv.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case involves multiple criminal appeals arising from complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning dishonoured cheques issued in relation to an agreement to sell commercial units (!) (!) .

2. The core dispute centers around whether the multiple cheques issued by Respondent No. 2, including personal and firm cheques, represent separate causes of action or are part of a single transaction, and whether the subsequent complaints are maintainable or constitute an abuse of process (!) (!) .

3. The High Court quashed certain complaints on the grounds that multiple complaints related to the same underlying liability, particularly when cheques issued from the personal account and the firm account were involved, and it viewed the continuation of parallel proceedings as an abuse of process (!) (!) .

4. The Supreme Court clarified that under the law, each dishonoured cheque can constitute a separate cause of action, provided the statutory requirements are met and each cheque is dishonoured independently. The Court emphasized that the scheme of the law does not prohibit multiple prosecutions arising from different cheques, even if they relate to the same transaction (!) (!) .

5. The Court pointed out that whether the cheques were issued as alternatives, in substitution, or as fresh undertakings is a question of fact that cannot be decided at the threshold through the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. Such questions should be determined during trial based on evidence (!) (!) .

6. The Court reiterated that the power to quash under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence on its face or where there is clear abuse of process. It is not permissible to conduct a mini trial or to weigh the evidence at this stage (!) (!) .

7. The Court found that the complaints filed by the appellant (the complainant) did disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, as the cheques were dishonoured, statutory notices were served, and there was a failure to pay within the statutory period (!) (!) .

8. The Court set aside the quashing of the complaint against Respondent No. 2 and restored the case for trial, emphasizing that the issues regarding the nature of the liability and the issuance of multiple cheques are matters for the trial court to determine based on evidence (!) .

9. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the refusal to quash certain complaints, reaffirming that the proceedings should continue and that the question of whether any amount is due or whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt is a matter for trial, not for summary disposal (!) .

10. Overall, the decision underscores that multiple cheques issued in relation to a single transaction can each constitute a separate cause of action under Section 138, and the High Court's jurisdiction to quash such proceedings is limited to clear cases of abuse or non-disclosure of an offence on the face of the complaint.