SUMIT BANSAL versus M/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 08-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 107 : 2026 INSC 40
Sumit Bansal 
v. 
M/s MGI Developers and Promoters and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2026)
08 January 2026
[Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
a) Whether the High Court was right in quashing Complaint Case 
No.3298 of 2019 and the consequential summoning order dated 
06.03.2019 against respondent nos.1 and 2 herein arising out of 
the dishonour of the firm’s cheque Nos.057140 and 057141, on 
the ground that it related to the same underlying liability for which 
another complaint i.e., Complaint Case No.2823 of 2019 had 
already been instituted and whether the same would not amount 
to conducting a ‘mini trial’ which is clearly prohibited under the 
scheme of s.482 of the Cr.PC; and b) Whether the High Court 
erred in not quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent 
no.2 arising out of Complaint Case No.2823 of 2019, Complaint 
Case No.13508 of 2019 and Complaint Case No.743 of 2020.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881 – Parties entered into an Agreement to 
Sell dated 07.11.2016 in respect of three commercial units – 
The total sale consideration agreed between the parties was 
Rs.1,72,21,200/- was admittedly paid by the complainant to 
the proprietorship firm – Upon the failure of respondent nos.1 
(firm) and 2 (proprietor) to execute the Sale Deed(s), respondent 
no.1 issued cheques, which were returned dishonored – A total 
of five complaint cases came to be filed by the complainant 
against the same set of accused, each complaint relating to 
distinct cheque instruments and separate dates of presentation 
and dishonour: (i) Complaint Case No.2823/2019; (ii) Complaint 
Case No.3298/2019; (iii) Complaint Case No.13508/2019; 
(iv) Complaint Case No.740/20204; and (v) Complaint Case 
No.743/2020, the last two arising out of the same set of 
* Author
108
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
transactions – Respondents filed petitions u/s.482 CrPC before 
the High Court seeking quashing of the complaints and the 
summoning orders – The High Court quashed the complaint 
relating to the firm’s cheques (Complaint Case No.3298 of 
2019) in entirety, and also partially quashed the complaint 
relating to the personal cheques (Complaint Case No.2823 
of 2019) – Correctness:
Held: In Complaint case 3298 of 2019, having perused the 
impugned judgment of High Court qua quashing of Complaint Case 
No.3298 of 2019, this Court is unable to concur with the reasoning 
reached by the High Court – It is well settled that u/s.138 of the 
NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour 
of a cheque provided the statutory sequence of presentation, 
dishonour, notice, and failure to pay is complete – The fact that 
multiple cheques arise from one transaction will not merge them 
into a single cause of action – In the present case, the cheques 
forming the subject of the two complaints (Complaint Case No.2823 
of 2019 and Complaint Case No.3298 of 2019) were distinct 
instruments drawn on different accounts, presented on different 
dates, dishonoured separately, and followed by independent 
statutory notices – The scheme of s.138 of the NI Act does not bar 
prosecution in such circumstances – Whether those cheques were 
issued as alternative or supplementary instruments, or represented 
fresh undertakings, is a disputed question of fact requiring evidence 
at the time of trial and cannot be resolved at the threshold – The 
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court u/s.482 of the Cr.PC cannot 
be used to decide such disputed issues – This Court is of the view 
that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and was not justified 
in quashing Complaint Case No.3298 of 2019 – As far as other 
complaint cases i.e. Complaint Case No.743 of 2020, Complaint 
Case No.13508 of 2019 and Complaint Case No.2823 of 2019 
are concerned, the record clearly indicates that these complaints 
(Complaint Case No.2823 of 2019, Complaint Case No.13508 of 
2019 and Complaint Case No.743 of 2020) arise out of cheques 
issued and dishonoured on different dates in 2018 and 2019, each 
followed by independent statutory notices and complaint – On 
a careful reading of the ingredients required for commission of 
offence u/s.138 of the NI Act, this Court finds that the record clearly 
indicates that the cheques were dishonoured, statutory notices 
were served, cheques were returned, and the summons were 
thereafter issued – 

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