LexRENUKA versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 26 : 2026 INSC 327 Renuka v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1783 of 2026) 07 April 2026 [J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Sessions Court as well as the High Court erred in holding that the complaint as filed by the appellant u/s.138 of the N.I. Act was liable to be dismissed at the pre-trial stage on the ground that the cheque issued by the second respondent was not towards any legally enforceable debt. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 139 – Once the basic ingredients of s.138 are satisfied, the complaint cannot be dismissed at the pre-trial stage on the ground that the cheque issued was not towards a legally enforceable debt – Appellant’s case that in terms of the settlement agreement between her and her husband, her husband had to inter alia pay ₹50 crores to her – Second respondent acted as a guarantor and issued the cheque in question drawn in favour of the appellant – On being presented, the cheque got dishonoured with the remark ‘payment stopped by drawer’ – Eventually, complaint filed by the appellant u/s.138 against the second respondent – Process issued by Metropolitan Magistrate – Order set aside by Sessions Court holding that on the date of issuance of the cheque in question, there was no legally enforceable debt to be satisfied by the drawer – Challenged by the appellant, writ petition dismissed by High Court – Interference with: Held: Once the basic ingredients of s.138 are duly satisfied by the complainant, the rebuttal of statutory presumption by the drawer can only be made during the course of trial – The basic ingredients for attracting the provisions of s.138 had been duly * Author [2026] 5 S.C.R. 27 Renuka v. The State of Maharashtra and Another satisfied by the appellant, at least for issuance of process – When the basic ingredients of s.138 stand duly satisfied and the statutory presumption u/s.139 gets triggered, coming to a conclusion that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt at the pre-trial stage itself without granting an opportunity to the complainant to substantiate her case by leading evidence would amount to ignoring the statutory presumption that the cheque had been issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability – As a consequence, the presumption u/s.139 gets washed away even prior to commencement of the trial – On facts, the dismissal of the complaint as a consequence of setting aside the order issuing process is totally unjustified in the absence of any material being brought on record by the second respondent to rebut the statutory presumption and prove his contention that the cheque was issued not towards any enforceable debt or liability – Sessions Court committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process u/s.138 – High Court also fell into error in upholding the order passed by the Sessions Judge – Both the orders set aside – Complaint filed by the appellant restored for adjudication on merits. [Paras 10, 11] Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 139 – At the stage of issuance of process, the statutory presumption u/s.139 cannot be dislodged in a summary manner merely by contending that the cheque issued was not for any legally enforceable debt or liability: Held: At the stage of issuance of process by the Metropolitan Magistrate, what is prima facie required to be seen is the issuance of cheque by the drawer in favour of the complainant, its dishonour on presentation by the payee, issuance of statutory notice u/s.138 and filing of the complaint within the prescribed statutory period – If the drawer does not dispute issuance of such a cheque nor does he deny his signature on the dishonoured cheque, the statutory presumption as contemplated u/s.139 comes into play – As a result, the burden would shift on the drawer of the cheque to prove that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt or liability – This exercise has to be undertaken during the trial either by relying upon the material brought on record by the complainant or by the drawer leading evidence in rebuttal. [Para 8] 28 [2026] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Sunil Todi and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2021 INSC 823 : [2021] 9 SCR 1086; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, 2010 INSC 289 : [2010] 6 SCR 507; Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, 2023 INSC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.