The Supreme Court on Friday stepped in to revive a cheque bounce case that had been shut out midway by the Patna High Court, reminding courts to tread carefully before killing criminal complaints at the threshold. Sitting in the packed courtroom, the mood was clear - the Bench was not impressed with how the High Court had short-circuited the process in a routine commercial dispute involving an unpaid cheque.
The case arose from a business transaction that went sour and eventually landed before the apex court, raising an important question: how far can a High Court go while quashing criminal proceedings before trial even begins?
Background
The dispute traces back to 2013, when M/s Sri Om Sales supplied goods to Abhay Kumar, also known as Abhay Patel. According to the complainant, a cheque worth ₹20 lakh was issued towards payment for those goods. When the cheque was presented to the bank, it bounced - twice - due to insufficient funds.
After serving a legal demand notice and receiving a denial from the accused, the firm moved the Magistrate under the cheque bounce law. The trial court took cognisance and summoned the accused. That’s when things took a turn. The accused approached the Patna High Court, which used its special powers to quash the entire complaint, holding that the cheque was not issued against any legally payable debt.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court did not agree with that approach. The Bench pointed out that at this early stage, courts are only expected to see whether the complaint makes out a basic case, not decide disputed facts.
“The complaint clearly spells out the necessary ingredients,” the Bench observed, adding that once a cheque and its dishonour are shown, the law raises a presumption that it was issued to clear a liability.
The judges reminded that this presumption can be challenged - but only during trial. Going into whether the cheque was truly linked to a debt, the court said, amounted to a “roving enquiry,” something the High Court should have avoided.
In firm words, the Bench noted that quashing cases prematurely could deny both sides a fair chance to lead evidence. As one line from the judgment stood out in court, the judges cautioned that “scuttling the criminal process at a pre-trial stage can be grave and irreparable.”
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s 2019 order and restored the cheque bounce complaint to the Magistrate’s court. The trial will now proceed in accordance with law, with the accused free to raise his defence during evidence.
The Bench, however, made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on whether the cheque was actually issued for clearing a debt - that question, the court said, must be decided independently by the trial court after hearing both sides.
Case Title: M/s Sri Om Sales v. Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Patel & Another
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Cheque Bounce – Negotiable Instruments Act)
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5588 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8703 of 2019)
Date of Judgment: 19 December 2025