In CRL.M.C. 5572/2022-DEL HC- Bouncing of every cheque would give rise to separate cause of action, reaffirms Delhi HC
Justice Amit Sharma [10-11-2022]

Read Order: M/S WHITEFIELDS OVERSEAS LTD. & ANR v. M/S DIAT AGRO HOLDINGS PVT. LTD 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, November 17, 2022: While observing that the court should be slow to grant relief at a pre-trial stage, before parties have had an opportunity to adduce evidence, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition u/s 482 CrPC in a case of cheque bounce where the cheques were issued towards discharge of the alleged liability in part.

“It is settled law that bouncing of every cheque would give rise to a separate cause of action”,  Justice Amit Sharma asserted.

The respondent had supplied consignments to the first petitioner and raised invoices with respect to the same. Thereafter, the petitioner issued 11 cheques in the sum of Rs 85,26,50.39 in favor of the respondent. On presentation, the said cheques returned unpaid. The respondent sent demand notice to the petitioners but they denied their liability.

The petitioners disputed supply as well as the quality thereof. The respondent, thereafter, instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and the Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners and others for offence punishable under Section 138.

The said complaint case was instituted with respect to the aforementioned eleven cheques, of which four were outdated, and hence, the case did not lie with respect to those cheques. Aggrieved by the summoning order, the petitioners herein filed a revision petition and the ASJ, in the impugned order, recorded that admittedly, the petitioners were the Managing Director, authorized signatory. 

The  petition in question had been instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the said revision petition qua the present petitioners.

The petitioners had relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/S Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, but the Bench held that such reliance was misplaced as the Apex Court in the said case was dealing with a proposition whether once a settlement had been entered into and pursuance of the said settlement, fresh cheques had been issued, could the complainant be allowed to pursue the original complaint in which the compromise had taken place.

The Bench took note of the fact that in the present case, admittedly no compromise had been arrived at between the parties to the subject complaint. 

The submission of the petitioners that the cheques had been issued for the same invoices and therefore would give rise to the same cause of action was not held to be tenable by the Bench, in view of the fact that the cheques in both the complaints had allegedly been issued for discharge of liability, in part, arising out of the invoices relied upon by the respondent. 

As per the High Court, the complaint case disclosed the filing of the subject complaint case by the respondent with respect to the cheques which were subject matter of the present petition and further clearly stated that besides the aforesaid cheque, the liability of the petitioners towards the respondent remained to the tune of Rs 1,94,53,509.00, besides continuous interest accruing upon the unpaid amount. 

Moreover, the total amount of the invoices which were common to the complaints,was Rs 1,63,46844.00. Noticing that the cheque amount in the present case was Rs 85,26,520.39, the Bench held that admittedly, the cheques in the subject complaint did not correspond to the total value of invoices and therefore cheques were issued towards discharge of the alleged liability in part.

The Bench observed that it was for the petitioner to prove that the said cheques were not issued towards discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or liability and the Court could not go into factual issues which were not admitted between the parties. 

Considering that the inherent jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, the Bench dismissed the petition.