Judicial Finality: High Court Rejects Attempt to Derail Cheque Dishonour Proceedings

In a significant ruling aimed at curbing procedural delays in cheque bounce cases, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition seeking to quash a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . Justice Sanjay Parihar, presiding over the matter of Jasveer Singh and others vs Jugal Kishore , emphasized that parties cannot use subsequent civil or criminal filings as a mechanism to derail established statutory prosecutions.

A Web of Counter-Litigation

The case originated from a complaint filed by the respondent before the JMIC (Sub-Judge), Katra , regarding dishonoured cheques totaling a substantial sum. Following the trial court’s decision to take cognizance of the offence, the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, alleging that the complaint was a “counterblast” to a civil recovery suit and a private criminal complaint they had initiated against the respondent.

The High Court found that the petitioners’ legal strategy was tactical rather than substantial. Notably, the petitioner had initiated civil action and secondary criminal complaints only after the Section 138 proceedings had been set in motion, indicating an attempt to create a smoke screen of "pending litigation" to stall the inevitable legal consequences of the cheque dishonour.

The BNSS and Special Statutes

A core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the mandatory "pre-cognizance hearing" under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) remains an absolute requirement in cases governed by the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The petitioners argued that having been granted a hearing at the pre-cognizance stage, the procedure should follow a specific, rigid path. The Court firmly rejected this, noting that proceedings under Section 138 are governed by a special statute. Citing the Supreme Court ’s ruling in Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & another (2025 Live Law (SC) 952) , Justice Parihar affirmed that the urgency and specific requirements of the NI Act override general procedural hurdles at the pre-cognizance stage.

Key Observations

The High Court’s frustration with the petitioners’ attempts to manipulate the legal process was evident in its reasoning:

• "The petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings against the respondent with a view to derail the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ."
• "The essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act include the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability."
• "The Trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... holding that the requirement of hearing the accused at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223 of the BNSS stands dispensed with."
• "The plea that the petitioner was denied the right of hearing is wholly contradictory to the record."

Implications for Future Cases

By dismissing the petition, the High Court has reinforced the procedural integrity of Section 138 matters. The ruling serves as a clear warning to litigants who attempt to leverage "multi-front" litigation to stall or suppress legitimate recovery proceedings. The Court has directed the trial court to proceed with the case, signaling a return to efficiency in handling cheque dishonour offences despite aggressive defensive tactics.

This judgment confirms that where statutory presumptions of liability are met, and service of legal notice is verified, courts will not permit the dilution of the Negotiable Instruments Act through manufactured procedural complexity.