SUMIT BANSAL versus M/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER

SUMIT BANSAL versus M/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER

Where cheques are distinct negotiable instruments presented and dishonoured on different dates and followed by independent statutory notices, each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act; disputed factual questions about whether instruments were alternative or substituted securities cannot be decided under Section 482 CrPC at the threshold, and therefore the High Court erred in quashing Complaint Case No.3298/2019 while it correctly declined to quash other complaints which prima facie disclosed ingredients of s.138.

Parties
Appellant / Complainant: Sumit Bansal; Respondent No.1 / Accused (proprietorship Firm): M/s MGI Developers and Promoters; Respondent No.2 / Accused (proprietor): Shri Manoj Goyal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: High Court quashing of Complaint Case No.3298/2019 set aside; other appeals by Respondent No.2 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 482 Cr PC, Section 138 NI Act, Section 139 NI Act, Quashing of Criminal Proceedings, Dishonour of Cheque, Statutory Notice, Mini Trial, Presumption of Liability
Criminal Procedure Negotiable Instruments Act Section 482 Cr PC Section 138 NI Act Section 139 NI Act Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Dishonour of Cheque Statutory Notice +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumit Bansal

Appellant / Complainant

M/s MGI Developers and Promoters

Respondent No.1 / Accused (proprietorship Firm)

Shri Manoj Goyal

Respondent No.2 / Accused (proprietor)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court was right to quash Complaint Case No.3298 of 2019 under s.482 CrPC on ground of multiplicity of proceedings relating to same underlying liability;
  2. 2 Whether High Court erred in not quashing Complaint Case Nos. 2823/2019, 13508/2019 and 743/2020 against Respondent No.2

Ratio Decidendi

Where cheques are distinct negotiable instruments presented and dishonoured on different dates and followed by independent statutory notices, each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act; disputed factual questions about whether instruments were alternative or substituted securities cannot be decided under Section 482 CrPC at the threshold, and therefore the High Court erred in quashing Complaint Case No.3298/2019 while it correctly declined to quash other complaints which prima facie disclosed ingredients of s.138.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: High Court quashing of Complaint Case No.3298/2019 set aside; other appeals by Respondent No.2 dismissed.

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court dated 17.04.2025 in Crl.MC No.8002 of 2023 quashing Complaint Case No.3298 of 2019 and the summoning order dated 06.03.2019 is set aside; Complaint Case No.3298 of 2019 restored for trial before the concerned Trial Court.
  • Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.11262 of 2025, 11647 of 2025 and 11787 of 2025 preferred by Respondent No.2 are dismissed.