Sumit Bansal v M/s MGI Developers and Promoters, 2026
It upholds principle that dishonour of each cheque is a separate cause of action; multiplicity does not bar prosecution.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
13 January 2026
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
Parties entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 7 November 2016 for three commercial units, total Rs 1.72 crore, amount paid by the complainant.
-
Agreement provided refund with appreciation of Rs 35 lakh if sale deeds were not executed by 30 September 2018.
-
Respondent firm issued two cheques, and the promoter issued two personal cheques as part of refund.
-
All cheques were dishonoured, including fresh cheques issued in 2019.
-
Complainant filed five complaints under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of cheques.
-
Delhi High Court quashed complaints related to firm’s cheques issued in Sept 2018, holding parallel complaints for same liability impermissible.
-
High Court refused to quash complaints related to fresh cheques issued in 2019, considering them independent causes of action.
-
Both parties approached the Supreme Court challenging partial quashings.
Issues
-
Whether multiple cheques arising from the same transaction can give rise to separate causes of action under Section 138 of the NI Act?
-
Whether the High Court can quash complaints at the threshold merely on the ground of multiplicity of cheques?
-
Whether disputed questions of fact regarding alternative, substitution, or supplementary cheques can be decided under Section 482 CrPC before trial?
-
Whether the statutory presumption under Sections 138 & 139 NI Act places the burden on accused to disprove liability during trial?
Held
-
Multiple cheques arising from the same transaction can give rise to separate causes of action under Section 138 NI Act.
-
High Court exceeded jurisdiction in quashing complaints based solely on multiplicity.
-
Disputed questions of fact (alternative/substitution cheques) cannot be resolved at the threshold.
-
Statutory presumption of liability under Sections 138 & 139 remains enforceable; burden lies on accused.
Analysis
-
Section 138 NI Act and statutory sequence for dishonour notices.
-
Section 482 CrPC cannot override trial procedure to resolve factual disputes.
-
Reliance on Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure for limits of inherent powers.
-
Strengthens protection of payee under NI Act against dishonour of multiple cheques.
-
Clarifies limits of quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC.
-
Affirms that disputed questions regarding alternative/substitution cheques must be adjudicated at trial.
-
Upholds principle that dishonour of each cheque is a separate cause of action; multiplicity does not bar prosecution.