K. HYMAVATHI versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 412 · Decided: 06-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
K. HYMAVATHI
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.2743 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
 Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in quashing the 
criminal proceedings fi led by appellant against respondent No.2-accused 
u/ss.138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that it 
was a fi t case for quashing since the complaint fi led seeking prosecution 
was not in respect of a legally recoverable debt.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Debt if legally enforceable – 
Exercise of power u/s. 482, CrPC – Scope:
Held: Whether the debt in question is a legally enforceable debt or 
other liability would arise on the facts and circumstance of each case and 
in that light, the question as to whether the power u/s.482, CrPC is to be 
exercised or not will also arise in the facts of such case – In the present case, 
High Court misdirected itself in holding that since the date of issuance of 
the cheque (2017) is beyond three years from the date of issuance of the 
promissory note (2012) so it is a time-barred debt – When the respondent 
had agreed to repay the amount within December, 2016, the cause of 
action to initiate proceedings to recover the said amount if not paid within 
December 2016 would arise only in the month of December, 2016 – Thus, 
the limitation would be as provided under Article 34 to the Schedule in the 
Limitation Act, 1963 – In respect of a promissory note payable at a fi xed 
time, the period of limitation being three years would begin to run when 
the fi xed time expires – Therefore, the time would begin to run from the 
month of December, 2016 and the period of limitation would expire at the 
end of three years thereto i.e. during December, 2019 – Thus, the cheque 
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 412 : 2023 INSC 811
412
413
dated 28.04.2017 is well within the period of limitation – Complaint in CC 
No.681 of 2017 was fi led on 11.07.2017, as is the case in all the analogous 
complaints – Therefore, not only the amount was a legally recoverable debt, 
the complaint was also fi led within time – No occasion to exercise power 
u/s.482, CrPC to quash the complaint – Order impugned set aside – Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Contract Act, 1872 – s.25(3) – Limitation 
Act, 1963 – Article 34. [Paras 12, 13, 15-17]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Debt/liability if barred by 
limitation, to be decided on evidence – Quashing u/s.482, CrPC justifi ed 
only if debt is non-recoverable:
Held: Whether the debt or liability is barred by limitation is to be 
decided based on the evidence to be adduced since the question of limitation 
is a mixed question of law and fact – It is only in cases wherein an amount 
which is out and out non-recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, 
dishonoured and for recovery of which a criminal action is initiated, the 
question of threshold jurisdiction will arise – In such cases, the Court 
exercising jurisdiction u/s.482, CrPC will be justifi ed in interfering but not 
otherwise – Entertaining a petition u/s.482, CrPC to quash the proceedings 
at the stage earlier to the evidence would not be justifi ed – Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 – s.482. [Para 10]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.139 – Plea that if the cheque 
is issued in respect of the debt which is not enforceable or a liability 
which cannot be recovered, in such event, the presumption u/s.139 
would not be available:
Held: No need to tread that path to undertake an academic exercise 
on that aspect of the matter, since on facts ex facie the claim made in the 
complaint before the Trial Court based on the cheque which was dishonoured 
cannot be construed as time-barred – Thus, it cannot be classifi ed as a debt 
which was not legally recoverable – Contract Act, 1872 – s.25(3) – Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482. [Para 12]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
S. Natarajan v. Sama Dharman, (2021) 6 SCC 413; A.V. Murthy v. 
B.S. Nagabasavanna, (2002) 2 SCC 642 : [2002] 1 SCR 906 – relied on.
K. HYMAVATHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & 
ANR.
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Expeditious Trial of Cases u/s 138 of NI Act 1881, (2021) SCC Online 
SC 325 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2743 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2019 of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRLP No.1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.