LexREKHA SHARAD USHIR versus SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1189 : 2025 INSC 399 Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. (Criminal Appeal No. 724 of 2025) 26 March 2025 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the complaint filed by the respondent-Credit Co-operative Society under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent, ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Abuse of process of law – Suppression of material facts and documents – When – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.200 – Security cheque issued in lieu of the loan allegedly taken by the appellant from the respondent-Credit Co-operative Society, dishonoured – Notice u/s.138 issued by the respondent – Appellant wrote letters seeking loan documents to enable her to reply statutory notice, which was not supplied to her – Respondent filed complaint, process u/s.138 issued – Challenged, High Court dismissed the petition – Interference with: Held: A litigant who suppresses material facts or makes a false statement cannot seek justice from the court – Respondent filed complaint suppressing the reply and the letter sent by the appellant’s advocate seeking the documents relied upon in the notice – These two documents were also suppressed in the statement on oath u/s.200, CrPC – Respondent made out a false case that the appellant did not reply to the demand notice – If these two letters were disclosed in the complaint, the Magistrate while recording the statement u/s.200, CrPC, could have questioned the respondent on the supply of documents to the appellant and after noticing that notwithstanding service of two letters written by the appellant, relied upon documents were not provided to * Author 1190 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports the appellant, he could have dismissed the complaint – Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is an abuse of the process of law – Impugned order set aside – Complaint and the order of cognizance are quashed and set aside. [Paras 13, 14, 22] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.200 – Examination of complainant – Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.223 – Complainant’s statement on oath – Object – Duty of Magistrate: Held: Recording the complainant's statement on oath u/s.200 is not an empty formality – The object of recording the complainant's statement and witnesses, if any, is to ascertain the truth – Magistrate is duty-bound to put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth – The examination is necessary to enable the Court to satisfy itself whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused – After considering the complaint, the documents produced along with the complaint, and the statements of the complainant and witnesses, if any, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused – If he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, then he has to issue a process in terms of s.204(1), CrPC. [Para 10] Case Law Cited S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Ors. [1993] Supp. 3 SCR 422 : (1994) 1 SCC 1 – relied on. List of Acts Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. List of Keywords Dishonour of cheque; Suppression of material facts and documents; Very material documents suppressed; Abuse of the process of law; Supply of documents; Relied upon documents not provided; False case; Default in repayment of the loan; Loan documents; Statement on oath; Statutory notice; Demand notice; Issue of process; False statement; Credit Co-operative society; Overdraft; Security cheques; Legal notice; Discharge of debt. [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1191 Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 724 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRLWP No. 2316 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammed, Rishabh Agarwal. Advs. for the Respondent: Abhay Anil Anturkar, Vaibhav Yeshwant Kulkarni, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaokar, Ms. Subhi Pastor, Bhagwant Deshpande. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.