Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea challenging summoning order under Section 138 NI Act, holding that civil and criminal remedies can be pursued simultaneously and terming the petition as frivolous. The Court further observed that questions of signature authenticity are matters for trial and cannot be examined at this stage.
The case arose from a petition seeking quashing of an order passed by the trial magistrate, whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheques. The petitioner approached the High Court claiming that the complaint itself was not maintainable.
The petitioner contended that the complaint had been filed prematurely, before completion of the statutory period prescribed under the NI Act. It was further urged that the cheques in question did not bear the genuine signatures of the petitioner. Another ground raised was that since the respondent had already instituted a civil suit for recovery of the same outstanding amount, initiation of criminal proceedings was impermissible in law.
The Court, however, rejected these contentions. It observed that “where both, a civil remedy as well as a criminal remedy for any transaction are available, the aggrieved person can avail both the remedies. The goal of the civil suit is the decree of the suit amount while the goal of the criminal proceedings is imposition of punishment, which can be imprisonment as well. There is no bar on the respondent proceeding with both remedies simultaneously".
On the issue of limitation, the Court clarified that the statutory scheme provides 15 days for payment after receipt of demand notice and one month thereafter for filing a complaint. Since the complaint in the present case was filed within the prescribed period, the Court found no merit in the petitioner’s argument. The Court further noted that, "The period of 45 days under reference is not a lump sum consolidated period; it is 15 days (after service of statutory notice, to pay vide proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act) plus 30 days (to file complaint under Section 141(1)(b) of the Act). The period of 30 days or 31 days (the provision uses the expression “one month”) is akin to the limitation period after arising of cause of action. The cause of action arises if by 15th day of service of the statutory notice, the cheque amount is not paid by the drawer".
Regarding the challenge to the signatures on the cheques, the Court noted that the cheques clearly carried the petitioner’s printed name as drawer. It held that “whether or not those signatures are genuine is a matter of trial. It is trite that the High Court while adjudicating upon a petition under Section 528 BNSS shall not carry out a mini trial".
Concluding that the petition was devoid of merit and frivolous, the Court dismissed it with costs of Rs.10,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks. The trial court was also directed to ensure compliance regarding costs.
Case Title: Smt Rama Oberoi vs. State Nct of Delhi and Anr
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 6228/2025
Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Bibek Tripathi
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP
Picture Source :
