Legal provisions involved: Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India

Judge/Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Facts

Sumit Bansal had booked commercial units from a real estate firm. When the deal did not materialise, the firm and its proprietor issued several cheques to refund the money. These cheques were issued from different accounts and on different dates. All the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. 

Because of this, separate cases were filed for each bounced cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court quashed one case but allowed the others to continue, which led both sides to approach the Supreme Court.

Key legal provisions

Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issues raised

Whether filing multiple cases for different cheques arising from the same deal is legally allowed?

Arguments of the case

The accused argued that since all cheques related to one transaction, only one case should continue. The complainant argued that every bounced cheque gives a fresh legal right.

Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that every dishonoured cheque is a separate offence. It said High Courts should not decide disputed facts while quashing cases. All cheque bounce cases were allowed to go to trial.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.