Latest JudgementNegotiable Instrument Act, 1881

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.

Supreme Court of India·13 January 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

13 January 2026

Judges

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Sections 138 & 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

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.

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?

Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court judgment quashing complaints related to firm’s cheques.
Held that each dishonour of a cheque, followed by statutory notice and failure to pay, constitutes a distinct cause of action.
Clarified that multiple cheques from the same transaction do not merge into a single cause of action.
Emphasized that questions regarding alternative or supplementary cheques are disputed facts to be examined at trial, not at quashing stage.
Reinforced that Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to decide contested factual issues.
Noted the statutory presumption under Sections 138 & 139 NI Act, placing burden on accused to rebut presumption at trial.
Restored the complaints quashed by the Delhi High Court.
Dismissed appeals filed by accused seeking quashing of remaining complaints.

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.

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.