InCriminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 7455 of 2019) -SC- Supreme Court restores cheque bounce case quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court,says ‘entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at the stage earlier to the evidence not justified’
Justice A.S. Bopanna & Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra [06-09-2023]

Read Order: K. Hymavathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh &Anr

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 8, 2023: In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has restored a cheque bounce case that was quashed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.The Top Court ruled that in this particular case, not only was the amount legally recoverable but the complaint was also filed within time. Consequently, there was no valid reason or justification in this case to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to quash the complaint.

The factual matrix of the case was that the appellant and respondent no. 2 had a prior acquaintance. Respondent no. 2 had approached the appellant to borrow Rs. 20,00,000, claiming it was for his son's higher education. To secure the re-payment, respondent no. 2 had executed a promissory note. However, he failed to fulfil the promissory note's conditions and instead issued a cheque for Rs. 10,00,000 as a partial re-payment. The bank returned the cheque due to insufficient funds. The appellant subsequently filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In response, respondent no. 2 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking to quash the proceedings. The High Court granted the petition, reasoning that the limitation for enforcing the promissory notes had already expired before the issuance of the cheques in question.

The bench comprising of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the determination of whether a debt or liability is barred by limitation, should be made based on the evidence presented by the parties. This is because the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The bench explained that the threshold jurisdiction to interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. arises only in cases where the amount is unequivocally non-recoverable, it is subsequently dishonoured, and criminal action is initiated for recovery. In such circumstances, the court has the authority to intervene. However, it is not justified to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings before the evidence has been considered.

The bench pointed out that in this case, the respondent no. 2 had agreed to repay the amount by December 2016. Therefore, the cause of action to initiate proceedings to recover the said amount, if not paid within December 2016, would only arise in December 2016. The bench held that in the case of a promissory note payable at a fixed time, the three-year period of limitation would begin to run when the fixed time expires. Accordingly, in this particular case, the limitation period would commence from December 2016, and it would expire at the end of three years, which was in December 2019. Given this, the cheque issued for Rs. 10,00,000, which was the subject matter of this case, was dated 28.04.2017, and it fell well within the period of limitation.

As a result, the complaints were restored to the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Visakhapatnam. The Court instructed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings, considering that the case had been pending since 2017.