IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21806 of 2024 DR.SANDEEP PATEL Versus ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Appearance:

Shri Lawkush Prasad Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Neerja Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

challenging the order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the 9th ASJ, Rewa (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.33/2024 and order dated 09.11.2022 (Anneuxre A/3) passed by the JMFC, Rewa (M.P.) in SC NIA No.404/2020 whereby the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "N.I. Act")

has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court stating that in December 2019, the applicant borrowed a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondent for family needs, assuring repayment within four to five months. Upon demand, the applicant issued Cheque No. 023218 dated 31.05.2020 for Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Rewa, towards discharge of his liability. The cheque was presented on 21.07.2020 in Union Bank of India, Branch Raniganj, Rewa, but was dishonoured vide return memo dated 23.07.2020 with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. A statutory demand notice dated 04.08.2020 was duly served upon the applicant on 06.09.2020. Despite service of notice, the applicant failed to make payment within the stipulated period, thereby committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and has submitted that both the Courts below have committed are error in dismissing his application. Respondent No.1 filed the complaint against the dishonour of the cheque where in the said cheque it has been clearly mentioned with a note as "not negotiable". Therefore, the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not applicable against the present petitioner. It is further argued that the trial court in its order held that since the disputed cheque has the words 'not negotiable' on it, whether the cheque falls within the ambit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or not can be decided only after taking evidence and on that basis the application of the applicant has been rejected. Whereas the sub-ordinate court should have considered that since the words 'not negotiable' were already written on the said cheque, therefore, the same would not fall within the ambit of Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It is further submitted that he has also given reply to the notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and clearly mentioned that the cheque has not been issued with a note that it is not negotiable. Therefore, the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not invoked on the present applicant. To support his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement delivered in the case of Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers Vs. Governor General in Counsel and other, reported in AIR 1952 Allahabad 590 in which it has been held that when a cheque is under the law of negotiable instrument its negotiability is destroyed only if it is marked as not negotiable on its face it does not get destroyed by simply being crossed whether generally or specially. The only effect of crossing a cheque is, as stated in Section 126, Negotiable Instruments Act is that the drawee bank must not pay it otherwise than to any banker if it is crossed generally, or to the particular banker if it is crossed specially. There is no other effect of the crossing. Relevant para of the judgement are reproduced below:

"3. The suit was jointly defended by the defendants. Their sole contention was that the plaintiff was not justified in paying the cheque in cash to Sgt. Pettiford when it was a crossed cheque. Their contention was