1. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed for default, and a subsequent application for restoration was denied by the trial and appellate courts. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 119
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Yatendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 542 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1205 of 2026)
Decided On : 30-01-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Susheel Tomar, Adv. Mrs. Harshita Verma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Ansh Yadav, Adv. Ms. Ritika Yadav, Adv. Ms. Sharmishtha Shukla, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Susheel Tomar, Adv. Mrs. Harshita Verma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Ansh Yadav, Adv. Ms. Ritika Yadav, Adv. Ms. Sharmishtha Shukla, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque – Complaint Case must be decided on merit.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Appellant is seeking restoration of Complaint Case which was dismissed for default by Trial Court and High Court declined to restore the same – High court was not right in declining to interfere in the matter – Order passed by High Court in Criminal Revision and order passed by Presiding Officer in Complaint Case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act set aside and Complaint Case restored on file of said Court. (Paras 4, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Being aggrieved by order dated 24.09.2025 by which earlier order dated 03.03.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustained, appellant is before this Court.
Findings of Court:
Order dated 24.09.2025 passed by High Court in Criminal Revision Defective No.981/2024 and order dated 03.03.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2 Ghaziabad in Complaint Case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are set aside.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
Judgement Key Points
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ऑफ इंडिया में यतेंद्र सिंह द्वारा राज्य बनाम अन्य के विरुद्ध दायर आपराधिक अपील संख्या 542/2026 सुनी गई। (!) (!) छुट्टी प्रदान की गई। (!) अपीलकर्ता ने धारा 138 नीगोशिएबल इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स एक्ट के तहत शिकायत केस संख्या 1125/2022 के बहाली की मांग की, जो ट्रायल कोर्ट द्वारा डिफॉल्ट में 03.03.2023 को खारिज हो गया था तथा उच्च न्यायालय ने 24.09.2025 को इसे बहाल करने से अस्वीकार कर दिया। (!) (!) दोनों पक्षों के वकीलों को सुना गया तथा रिकॉर्ड की जांच की गई। (!) न्याय के हित में उच्च न्यायालय का निर्णय गलत पाया गया। (!) अतः उच्च न्यायालय का आदेश दिनांक 24.09.2025 (क्रिमिनल रिवीजन डिफेक्टिव संख्या 981/2024) तथा ट्रायल कोर्ट का आदेश दिनांक 03.03.2023 रद्द कर शिकायत केस संख्या 1125/2022 को गाजियाबाद के एडिशनल कोर्ट संख्या 2 में बहाल किया गया। (!) अपील इस प्रकार निस्तीर्ण। (!) लंबित आवेदन निस्तीर्ण। (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The appellant contended that the trial court and the High Court erred in dismissing and refusing to restore the complaint case, necessitating judicial intervention in the interests of justice. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The court observed that the High Court was unjustified in declining to interfere with the dismissal, and restoring the complaint was necessary to serve the interests of justice. (Para 5 )
4. A dismissal for default in a complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act is subject to revision and restoration where the interests of justice mandate such interference. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. The High Court order and trial court dismissal are set aside, and the complaint case is restored to the trial court's file for further proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Does a court have the authority to restore a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that was dismissed for default?
Yes, in the interest of justice, appellate courts can interfere with orders dismissing such complaints for default and direct their restoration to the trial court's file. (Para 5 , 6 )
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2025 by which the earlier order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.1125/2022 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustained, the appellant is before this Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the second respondent. We have perused the material on record.
4. All that the appellant is seeking in this appeal is for restoration of Complaint Case No.1125/2022 as the said case was dismissed for default by the Trial Court and the High Court declined to restore the same.
5. Having regard to the submissions advanced at the bar and also bearing in mind the interest of justice, we find that the High court was not right in declining to interfere in the matter.
6. Consequently, the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision Defective No.981/2024 and order dated 03.03.2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2 Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.1125/2022 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are set aside and Complaint Case No.1125/2022 is restored on the file of the said Court.
7. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
