HC, in Sec. 482 CrPC, Must Not Decide the Mixed Law-fact Issue on Time-barred Debt in Sec. 138 Proceedings

Case Details: Atamjit Singh v. State (Nct of Delhi) - [2024] 159 taxmann.com 153 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Vikram Nath & Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
  • Sudeep Sehgal, Adv. & Sandeep Singh, AOR for the Petitioner.
  • Vikramjit Banerjee, Bharat Sood, Saransh Kumar, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Shaurya Rai, Madhav Sinhal, Advs. & Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Complainant had given a loan of Rs. 20 lakh to the accused. In order to discharge the said loan, the accused issued a post-dated cheque towards part repayment of outstanding dues, which got dishonoured.

The complainant, thus, filed a complaint against the accused under section 138. The Trial Court took cognizance of the case and issued a summon to the accused.

The High Court by way of an impugned order deemed it appropriate to quash underlying proceedings on the principal premise that as on the date of issuance of the summoning order, underlying debt and/or liability qua accused was time-barred.

Supreme Court Held

The Apex Court noted that the question regarding the time-barred nature of an underlying debt or liability in proceedings under Section 138 was a mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, and, accordingly set aside the impugned order of the High Court.