Read Time: 06 minutes
In the instant case, the Supreme Court agreed with the earlier opinion that the classification of the underlying debt or liability as being barred by limitation is a question that must be decided based on the evidence adduced by the parties
The Supreme Court has said that the high courts ought not to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to adjudicate upon a question regarding the time-barred nature of an underlying debt or liability in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as it involves a mixed question of law and fact.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed an appeal filed by one Atamjit Singh against the Delhi High Court's order of September 6, 2022.
The high court had quashed an order by Metropolitan Magistrate on August 3, 2017, summoning one Amrit Sandhu in relation to commission of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The appellant was the original complainant who instituted the proceedings as he was owed a sum of approximately Rs 20,10,000. The respondent issued a cheque on March 06, 2017 for a sum of Rs 20,00,000 in favour of the appellant.
The high court, however, held the prosecution of respondent no 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act as improper; and accordingly, by way of impugned judgment, quashed the summoning order issued by the trial court; and the underlying complaint.
It also said that in the absence of an acknowledgment of any underlying debt between 2011 and the date of issuance of the subject cheque in 2017, the underlying debt could not be held to be legally enforceable debt or liability on account of being barred by limitation.
The Supreme Court, however, relied upon the judgment in the case of 'Yogesh Jain vs Sumesh Chadha' (2022) whereunder it had dealt with the scope of interference by the high court in proceedings under 138 of the NI Act qua an allegedly time barred debt at the stage of issuance of summons, whilst exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
"Once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonoured a statutory notice is issued, it is for the accused to dislodge the legal presumption available Under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. Whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not, itself prima facie, is a matter of evidence and could not have been adjudicated in an application filed by the accused Under Section 482 of the CrPC,” the Apex Court had then said.
In the instant case, the bench agreed with the opinion that the classification of the underlying debt or liability as being barred by limitation is a question that must be decided based on the evidence adduced by the parties.
"Undoubtedly, the question regarding the time barred nature of an underlying debt or liability in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is a mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC," the bench said.
The court, thus, set aside the Delhi High Court's order and restored the underlying complaint to the file of the trial court.
Case Title: Atamjit Singh Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
Please Login or Register
