Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4293
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
VALMIKI MENEZES, J
VALUE LINE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
TRIUMPH REALTY PVT. LTD. – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.39 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Jatin Ramaiya, Mr. Omkar Parab
For the Respondents: Mr. Parag Rao, Mr. Shulin Singbal
The court upheld that at the issuance of process stage under Section 138, a prima facie standard of satisfaction is required without delving into detailed evidence.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Issuance of process - Complaint issued by Magistrate upheld by Revisional Court - Appellants contended lack of territorial jurisdiction and insufficiency of funds as grounds for dismissing the complaint - Courts clarified that at issuance stage, only prima facie satisfaction is required, and all evidentiary matters are reserved for trial. (Paras 4, 10, 12)
(B) Prima Facie Sufficiency - Magistrate not required to review every document extensively - Standard of proof at issuance of process is a basic threshold of satisfaction regarding allegations. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged a complaint issued under Section 138 N.I. Act, arguing improper jurisdiction and misinterpretation of dishonour reasons.
Findings of Court:
Magistrate's order upheld due to proper mention of prima facie case and valid process issuance.
Issues: Key questions involved the magistrate's duty at the process issuance stage regarding existing documents and records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that the primary satisfaction basis suffices for order issuance, and factual disputes concerning cheque dishonour should be reserved for subsequent trial.
Result: Petition rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court assesses jurisdiction and basis for dishonour. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of court's requirement at process issuance stage. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. clarification on the standard for upholding process issuance. (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final rejection of petition outlined. (Para 12 , 13) |
CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED: 24th June, 2025 P.C:
1. The petition takes exception to an order dated 21.04.2021 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.6/2021, in which the Petitioners had challenged an order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the J.M.F.C. in Criminal Case No. OA/431/2018/C by which it has issued process on the complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Respondent is the original Complainant who has alleged in the complaint that the three cheques issued by the Petitioners were for consideration and were banked, according to the complaint, in an account at Goa, based on which the Magistrate at Margao had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Process was issued by the learned Magistrate after examining the complaint and the documents annexed to the complaint.
2. The order of issuance of process was challenged in a Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court which has rejected the Revision, upholding the order of issuance of process. The Accused/Petitioner is before this Court against rejection in revisional jurisdiction.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has advanced the following submissions:
a) That the Magistrate ought to have considered not only the averments made in the complaint with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court, but ought to have perused the documents which were produced, which suggests that the cheque was actually banked and cleared at the Delhi branch of the Complainant’s bank. On the basis of the deposit slip alone, it is the contention of the Petitioners, that the Court ought to have rejected the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction and directed the Complainant to present the complaint before the Court with appropriate jurisdiction.
b) The second submission advanced was that the memo of return of the cheque did not state that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds but states that the cheque was returned since the KYC of the Petitioners/payees’ account and formalities were not completed. It was submitted that when an account does not have a valid KYC, the Magistrate could not have, at the stage of issuance of process, concluded that the cheque had been dishonoured for reasons that the account had insufficient funds to cover the cheque. Reliance has been placed on the following Judgments :
i. NEPC Micon Ltd. and Ors. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. , (1999) 4 SCC 253.
ii. Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , (2012)
13 SCC 375.
iii. Asmita Sarang v. Yogesh Badoni and Anr. , 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 528.
iv. Deepinder Singh Bedi and Anr., v. State and Anr., (2024) 314 DLT 632.
4. I have considered the record of the complaint and the documents annexed thereto and the affidavit in verification of the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The narrow issue, is whether at the state of issuance of process, the Magistrate is required to scan every document and every piece of evidence or is merely to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the complaint and the documents annexed thereto, suggests that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been committed. The Magistrate, at this stage, is not required to give verbose reasons for issuance of process but has merely to record his satisfaction.
5. The Revisional Court has considered the entire conspectus of the matter on the touchstone of this principle. The Revisional Court, in a detailed Judgment has concluded, after considering the complaint and the documents on record, that there is a prima facie case and that process had been properly issued.
6. The matter is now before a Writ Court seeking invocation of supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the
