No Single Petition to Quash Multiple Section 138 NI Act Cases | HC

Case Details: MAA Bagala Amusement Hub v. Gaurav Bora - [2025] 175 taxmann.com 515 (HC-Gauhati)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Mrs Mitali Thakuria, J.
• S.P. Roy, Ms V. Rai, Ms P. Agarwala & Jyotish Das, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Ms K. Sarma, M. Sahewalla, Ms N. Rahman, G.N. Sahewalla & H.K. Sarma, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent/complainant entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner for a vacant plot of land. The petitioner issued post-dated cheques to pay the monthly lease rent. However, cheques were dishonoured on presentation for encashment due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner.

The Respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner filed the present petition under section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the complaint case. The petitioner submitted that the respondent had already instituted a title suit to pay for a decree by eviction of the petitioners from land that was leased out in favour of the petitioner, and also prayed for recovery of the arrear rent amount.

Accordingly, it was submitted that the complaint case instituted by the respondent was not maintainable. Rather it would be an abuse of the process of the Court and also cause a miscarriage of justice, if the same was allowed to be proceeded with.

It was noted that legally enforceable debt on the petitioner could be decided or adjudicated only at trial, but cognisance was taken, and a prima facie case was found against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act.

Further, only for pendency of a civil suit filed by respondent for eviction and for recovery of arrear rental amount which was already pending for disposal, complaint case could not be quashed when there was existence of criminal liability.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the cause of action for all complaint cases was different. The cases were instituted after the petitioner dishonoured post-dated security cheques, and, therefore, under a single petition, there could not be a prayer for quashing all complaint cases.

Further, the High Court held that since petitioners would have ample opportunity to rebut the presumption under section 139 at the time of trial, there could not be any reason to quash or set aside all criminal complaint cases by invoking power under section 482 of the CrPC.

List of Cases Referred to

• R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana [2023] 2 SCC 195 (para 15)
• Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor [2013] 3 SCC 330 (para 16)
• Shiv Kumar v. Ramavtar Agarwal [2020] 12 SCC 500 (para 19)
• Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [2020] 116 taxmann.com 357 (SC) (para 20)
• Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel [2022] 143 taxmann.com 144/[2023] 175 SCL 5 (SC) (para 21).