Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Case Citation and Context - Supreme Court judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 1497/2022, reported as (2023) 1 SCC 578 or 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830; involves Section 138 NI Act offence where part payment was made after cheque issuance but before encashment/presentation ["M/S.PANORAMA OVERSEAS PRIVAT vs R.DEENADAYALAN - Madras"] ["Yatendra Varshney And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another - Allahabad"] ["SUBIR SINGH Vs. PARMINDER SINGH - Delhi"] ["ARUN KUMAR KHAITAN Vs. M/S DELTON CABLES LIMITED & ANR. - Delhi"] ["ANAND SURYAVANSHI vs MD.IDRISH - Chhattisgarh"] ["VIJAY RAMANLAL UPADHYAY vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"] ["VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER - Allahabad"] ["M/S Brk Food Private Limited vs M/S Manoj Trading Company - Madhya Pradesh"] ["VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER - Allahabad"] ["SUMIT DAS PARTNER HARIOM TRACTOR vs MAHARU RAM - Chhattisgarh"] ["ASAF ALI vs K.S. THANKACHAN - Kerala"] ["ANISUR RAHMAN vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. - Gauhati"] ["REDDAPPA CHETTY vs VIDHYADHAR S WODEYAR - Karnataka"]. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830, Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel V. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr. ["M/S.PANORAMA OVERSEAS PRIVAT vs R.DEENADAYALAN - Madras"].
Key Ruling on Part Payment - Part payment after cheque drawal but before encashment/maturity requires endorsement on cheque under Section 56 NI Act; cheque presented for full amount without endorsement does not represent legally enforceable debt, attracting no Section 138 offence. When a part of a sum due under the cheque is paid, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed under Section 56 of the Act and the cheque must be negotiated only for the balance amount. ["M/S.PANORAMA OVERSEAS PRIVAT vs R.DEENADAYALAN - Madras"]. Part payment towards the cheque... has already been made... therefore... cheque in question cannot be presented ["Yatendra Varshney And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another - Allahabad"]. The cheque could not have been presented without making an endorsement on the cheque in respect of the reduced liability apropos the said cheque. ["SUBIR SINGH Vs. PARMINDER SINGH - Delhi"]. The impugned cheques were presented for the entire sum... and thus... do not represent the legally enforceable debt and consequently, offence under Section 138 of the Act is not attracted. ["ARUN KUMAR KHAITAN Vs. M/S DELTON CABLES LIMITED & ANR. - Delhi"].
Application and Procedural Notes - Ruling applied post-trial (not quash stage); courts quash/stay proceedings or direct evidence on part payment if no endorsement. The judgement of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel (supra) as is being relied... was a case after trial was over ["Vinay Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]. In light of the decision of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel (supra) Section 138 of the NI Act would not be attracted ["ANAND SURYAVANSHI vs MD.IDRISH - Chhattisgarh"]. Cognizance stayed: the order dated 30.05.2023, in c taking cognizance against the petitioner in CR Case No. 7409 /2022 is stayed ["SON KALITA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR - Gauhati"].
Analysis and Conclusion - Establishes mandatory endorsement for part payments (post-drawal, pre-encashment) to sustain Section 138 proceedings; widely cited to quash complaints lacking endorsement, emphasizing reduced debt at maturity. The legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented ["Yatendra Varshney And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another - Allahabad"] ["M/S.PANORAMA OVERSEAS PRIVAT vs R.DEENADAYALAN - Madras"] ["REDDAPPA CHETTY vs VIDHYADHAR S WODEYAR - Karnataka"].
Cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are commonplace in India, often arising from business transactions or personal loans. A landmark Supreme Court judgment in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr., (2023) 1 SCC 578, has provided critical clarity on procedural safeguards and the impact of part payments. This decision addresses whether a notice demanding payment must match the exact cheque amount and how part payments affect the offence's validity. Understanding Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel is essential for complainants, accused, and legal practitioners navigating these technical provisions.
In this blog, we break down the main findings, detailed analysis, and insights from related cases, helping you grasp the nuances generally applicable in such proceedings.
The Supreme Court in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr., (2023) 1 SCC 578, emphasized strict procedural compliance for Section 138 NI Act offences. Key holdings include:
Precise Notice Demand: Proviso (b) to Section 138 requires the notice to demand 'payment of the said amount of money' exactly matching the cheque. Any discrepancy invalidates the notice. This reiterates Rahul Builders (supra), stating service of a notice making ‘demand of the payment of the amount of cheque’ as is evident from the use of the phraseology ‘payment of the said amount of money' Kaveri Plastics VS Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1712.
Part Payment Impact: If part payment is made after the cheque is drawn but before presentation, it reduces the legally enforceable debt. A dishonoured cheque for the original full amount then does not attract Section 138, as it must represent the subsisting liability on maturity. The Court clarified: if the drawer of a cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque Usha Agarwalla @ Usha Agarwal VS Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 942M. SETU MADHAVAN VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1618.
Magistrate's Role: Reinforces pre-summoning inquiry under Section 202 CrPC to verify prima facie case, without full trial on debt under Section 139 presumption Northern India Paint Colour And Varnish Co. LLP VS Sushil Chaudhary - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5779.
These principles ensure Section 138 remains a 'technical offence' demanding adherence to formalities.
Section 138 proceedings hinge on a valid notice under proviso (b), served within 30 days of dishonour intimation. The Dashrathbhai judgment stresses verbatim matching: demanding a different amount, as in Gokuldas vs. Atal Bihari (notice for Rs.43,000/- vs. cheque Rs.4,30,000/-), fails Kaveri Plastics VS Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1712. High Courts consistently hold deviations render notices invalid.
This is invoked for scrutinizing summoning orders alongside Pepsi Foods Ltd., mandating magistrates to check notice validity and basic debt existence pre-summons Northern India Paint Colour And Varnish Co. LLP VS Sushil Chaudhary - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5779. Failure here can lead to quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
A pivotal aspect is timing of part payments. The Supreme Court held that part payments post-drawing but pre-presentation adjust the debt: the question was raised, whether section 138 of the N.I. Act would still be attracted when the drawer of the cheque makes a part-payment towards the debt or liability after the cheque is drawn but before the cheque is encashed for the dishonour of the cheque, which represents the full sum M. SETU MADHAVAN VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1618.
Thus, on maturity, if the cheque exceeds the remaining debt, no offence occurs. This extends to security cheques maturing post-default Thottathil Lakshmanan, S/o. Raman VS Kundathil Sobhana, W/o. Sathyan - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 895. Accused can raise this defence with bank records at quash or trial stages.
Related citations affirm: For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation Mas Financial Services Limited Vs State Of Gujarat & Anr. - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1064Prakash Pandurang Shinde vs State of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1028Ashish Bharatbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1029.
The case is frequently cited in acquittal appeals for complainant's proof burdens. Once signatures are admitted, Section 139 presumes debt, but it's rebuttable by 'preponderance of probabilities'. Accused must raise probable defence on debt existence Prakash Pandurang Shinde vs State of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1028.
Courts uphold acquittals if trial views aren't perverse: The appellate court must be slow to disturb an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable SMT. DAYA RANI vs RAJEEV GULATI - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 12779. In financial capacity challenges, complainants must explain sources: when evidence was led before the Court to indicate that apart from loan of Rs. 6 lakhs given to the Accused, within 02 years, amount of Rs. 18 lakhs have been given out by the complainant and his financial capacity being questioned, it was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity Navin Vitthalrao Pawar vs Yogesh Shankerlal Badgurjar - 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1020Dharmendra Amarsingh Hanjra vs State of Gujarat - 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 965Suryadeep Finance Thro Dilipbhai Babbhai Khachar vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 0 Supreme(Guj) 1105Prakash Pandurang Shinde vs State of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1028Ashish Bharatbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1029.
Other rulings echo: Presumption rebutted if no reliable debt proof, dismissing leave to appeal applications Kanubhai Bhimjibhai Tank vs State of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1086MAYANK TOMER VS. SONAL SINGH & ANR. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 47618.
Exceptions: Applies strictly to NI Act; Section 139 shifts burden post-summons, but pre-summons basics must hold. No direct overlap with IPC here J. Vedhasingh VS R. M. Govindan - 2022 7 Supreme 166. Part payment defence stronger if documented pre-presentation.
Limitations: Viable at trial; retractions or post-seizure docs may weaken in complex cases, but core holding stands.
Recommendations (general guidance):- Complainants: Mirror cheque amount exactly in notice.- Accused: Document part payments (bank statements) for quash petitions.- Magistrates: Use Section 202 CrPC/145 NI Act affidavits for prima facie scrutiny Northern India Paint Colour And Varnish Co. LLP VS Sushil Chaudhary - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5779.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel underscores precision in NI Act compliance, protecting against frivolous claims while upholding legitimate ones. Core lessons:- Notices must demand the 'said amount' precisely.- Part payments reduce enforceable debt, potentially quashing proceedings.- Presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable; appellate courts respect acquittals unless perverse M/S.RAJKHAM HOUSING vs PRESIDENCY FINANCE LIMITED - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40498SMT. DAYA RANI vs RAJEEV GULATI - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 12779.
This judgment, (2023) 1 SCC 578, guides stakeholders in cheque-related disputes. While informative, this is general analysis—not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
References: As cited inline from provided sources.
#Section138 #ChequeBounce #NIACT
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr. ... Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel’s case(supra), the order dated 30.05.2023, in c taking cognizance against the petitioner in CR Case No. 7409 /2022 is stayed until the next date.
The learned counsel further submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830, Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel V. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr., was rendered after the trial and not in a quash petition. ... The learned further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830, Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel V. ... Hitesh #....
Therefore, part payment towards the cheque of Rs. 41,51,000/- has already been made by the applicant, therefore, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel; (2023) 1 SCC 578 cheque in question cannot be presented ... Paras 33 and 34 of the Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel (supra) case is reproduced hereinbelow: "33. ... Therefore, the judgement of the D....
No. 1497 of 2022 (Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and Another), which reads as follows:- “30. ... No. 1497 of 2022 (Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and Another). 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and another: 2022 Live Law (SC) 830 to buttress the said arguments. ... The judgement of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel (supra) as is being relied by the learned counsel was a case after trial was over, judgement was pronounced and an appeal was also decided by the High Court, the stage as such is di....
He submits that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel (2023) 1 SCC 578, the cheque could not have been presented without making an endorsement on the cheque in respect of the reduced liability apropos the said cheque.
Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. 2023 (1) SCC 578 The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 21:15:42 out in terms of Section 56 of the Act. ... Concededly, respondent admits to be in receipt of Rs.2 lacs towards the part payment of the debt and despite that, no enforcement was carried 1 Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. ... The impugned cheques were presented for the entire sum of Rs.21,39,520/- and thus in the teeth of Dashrathbhai (Supra), th....
He places reliance on the decision in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and Anr; (2023) 1 SCC 578 6.
In this regard, it is relevant to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr. ... Therefore, in light of the decision of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel (supra) Section 138 of the NI Act would not be attracted under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
ashrathbhai Trikambhae Supreme Court in Ddrabhai Patel
“30. In view of the discussion above, we summarise our findings below: 10.2 The Apex Court in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr. reported in 2023 1 SCC 578 has observed as under. (i) For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation; 28. We are of the view that when evidence was led before the Court to indicate that apart from loan of Rs. 6 lakhs given to the Accused, within 02 years, amount of Rs. 18 lakhs have been g....
7. The Apex Court in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr.,(2023) 1 SCC 578 has observed as under: “30. In view of the discussion above, we summarise our findings below: 6. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent-State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in detail in light of the citations referred to in the judgement and has passed the judgement and order of acquittal which is proper and no interference is required and hence the application for leave to appeal must be rejected. (i) F....
24. xxxx 25. xxxx 26. xxxx 27. xxxx 28. We are of the view that when evidence was led before the Court to indicate that apart from loan of Rs. 6 lakhs given to the Accused, within 02 years, amount of Rs. 18 lakhs have been given out by the complainant and his financial capacity being questioned, it was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity. Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence.” (i) For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or....
(i) For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation; 7.2 The Apex Court in the case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr., 2023 1 SCC 578 has observed as under: 24. xxxx 25. xxxx 26. xxxx 27. xxxx 28. We are of the view that when evidence was led before the Court to indicate that apart from loan of Rs. 6 lakhs given to the Accused, within 02 years, amount of Rs. 18 lakhs have been given out by the complainant and his fin....
24. xxxx 25. xxxx 26. xxxx 27. xxxx 28. We are of the view that when evidence was led before the Court to indicate that apart from loan of Rs. 6 lakhs given to the Accused, within 02 years, amount of Rs. 18 lakhs have been given out by the complainant and his financial capacity being questioned, it was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity. Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence.” (i) For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
