The continuation of criminal proceedings against a banker for a printing error in a demand draft does not meet the legal prerequisites of liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside Criminal Case No. 21329 of 2021 pending before the Court of the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.

2. I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, the learned advocate representing the private respondent, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State.

3. In the peculiar factual matrix of the present case, wherein the State Bank of India has been arrayed as an accused for an alleged printing error in Demand Draft No. 320438, it has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the issuance of process under Sections 131, 131A, 138, and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is wholly misconceived and amounts to a patent error on the part of the learned trial Court.

4. Adverting to the factual backdrop, it has been submitted that the complainant, Shri Kishorbhai Buddhdev, a practicing advocate and legal advisor of Essar Steel India Ltd., Hazira (now taken over by ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.), was entitled to legal fees of ₹96,662/– (Rupees Ninety-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty- Two only). Towards this liability, ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. approached the State Bank of India, Hazira Branch, and procured a demand draft of the said amount on 20.01.2021 vide Demand Draft No. 320438. However, upon presentation, the said demand draft was dishonoured with the endorsement “reason code

20 – mismatch in the demand draft number.”

5. Learned counsel would submit that the dishonour was occasioned solely due to an inadvertent printing error in the demand draft number, which led to its rejection. It is further pointed out that the entire amount of the demand draft has, thereafter, been duly paid to the complainant, and, in fact, even an additional sum was remitted by the State Bank of India.

6. On the aforesaid premises, it is the emphatic submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law, and accordingly, he has fervently prayed for quashing of the impugned complaint and the consequential proceedings.

7. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Himani v. Rakesh Kumar (Cr. MMO No.817 of

2025) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab and Sind Bank v. Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. , AIR 2001 SC 3641, and submitted that the contentions canvassed by the petitioner–State Bank of India involve disputed questions of fact which can appropriately be adjudicated only in the course of trial. It is, therefore, urged that this Court ought not to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and that the petition be dismissed in limine.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has adopted the submissions advanced by learned advocate for respondent No.2 and has also prayed for dismissal of the petition.

9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and have meticulously perused the material placed on record. Upon such consideration, I find myself constrained to observe that the order passed by the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No.21329 of 2021 is indeed uncalled for. The factual substratum, a