ATAMJIT SINGH versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1179 · Decided: 22-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1179 : 2024 INSC 84
Atamjit Singh 
v. 
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 
(Criminal Appeal no. 516 of 2024)
22 January 2024
[Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order passed 
by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning Respondent No. 2 
in relation to commission of offence under Section 138 of the 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the premise that as on the 
date of the issuance of the summoning order, the underlying debt 
and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred. 
Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope of interference by the High 
Court in proceedings u/s.138 of the NI Act qua allegedly time 
barred debt at the stage of issuance of summons, whilst 
exercising its jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC.
Held: 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 – Question regarding time 
barred nature of an underlying debt or liability in proceedings 
u/s.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 
u/s.482 CrPC. [Para 7]
Case Law Cited
Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha, Crl. Appeal Nos. 
1706-1761 of 2022 – relied on.
List of Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973.
1180
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Quashing; Summons; Summoning order; Debt; Liability; Time 
barred; Scope of interference; Limitation; Mixed question of 
law and fact.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.516 
of 2024.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2022 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMC No.556 of 2019.
Appearances for Parties
Sudeep Sehgal, Sandeep Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vikramjit Banerjee, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Bharat Sood, Saransh 
Kumar, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Shaurya Rai, Madhav Sinhal, Ms. 
Deeksha Ladi Kakar, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
ORDER
1.	
Leave granted. 
2.	
This is an appeal instituted at the instance of the original complainant 
of a complaint lodged under inter alia Section 138 of the Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881 (the “NI Act”) (the “Underlying Complaint”) 
assailing an order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the High Court of 
Delhi (the “High Court”) in CRL. M.C. No. 556 of 2019 whereunder 
the High Court quashed an order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the 
Metropolitan Magistrate -10, South-East, Saket Court (the “Trial 
Court”) summoning Mr. Amrit Sandhu Coaster/Respondent No. 2 in 
relation to the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the 
NI Act (the “Impugned Order”). 
3.	
The High Court by way of the Impugned Order deemed it appropriate 
to quash the underlying proceedings on the principal premise that as 
on the date of the issuance of the summoning order, the underlying 
debt and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred. 
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1181
Atamjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 
4.	
Prima-facie from the materials placed before us, it is revealed that 
pursuant to various transactions entered into by and between the 
(i) Appellant; (ii) Respondent No. 2; and (iii) Jasween Sandhu i.e., 
Accused No. 2 in the Underlying Complaint, allegedly pertaining to year 
2011,the Appellant was owed a sum of approximately Rs.20,10,000/- 
(Rupees Twenty Lakh Ten Thousand). Accordingly Respondent No. 
2 issued a cheque bearing number 329623 dated 06.03.2017 drawn 
on Syndicate Bank, Branch West Punjabi Bagh, Central Market, New 
Delhi-110026 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) in 
favour of the appellant (the “Subject Cheque”).
5.	
Upon a perusal of the Impugned Judgement, it is disclosed that 
High Court has relied upon (i) the Assured Returns Agreement 
dated 16.09.2011; and (ii) other receipts issued by the Appellant to 
Respondent No. 2, all of which pertain to transaction(s) entered into in 
the year 2011 to conclude that in the absence of an acknowledgment 
of any underlying debt between 2011 and the date of issuance of 
the Subject Cheque i.e., 06.03.2017, the underlying debt could not 
be held to be legally enforceable debt or liability on account of being 
barred by limitation. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, 
the prosecution of Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the NI 
Act w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.