Delhi High Court: A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order dated 17-02-2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in petition which set aside the order dated 24-09-2019 of the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) summoning Respondent 2 in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Neena Bansal Krishna, J., set aside the order dated 17-02-2021 passed by the learned ASJ, holding that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was maintainable despite the discrepancy in the amount mentioned in words and figures.
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against Respondent 2 based on a cheque for Rs. 4,65,000 issued in discharge of a loan liability of Rs. 5,00,000. The loan was granted through a cousin. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonored with the remarks, “payment stopped by the drawer.” On 24-09-2019, the MM summoned Respondent 2 to face trial under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, Respondent 2 sought discharge on the grounds that the cheque contained an overwritten date, rendering it void under Section 87 of the NI Act.
Additionally, the cheque amount was stated as Rs. 4,65,000 in figures but as “Rupees Four Lac Sixty-Five only” in words, which, as per Section 18 of the NI Act, meant that the correct amount should be deemed Rs. 4,00,065. Since the demand notice sent on 27-01-2018 sought Rs. 4,65,000, it was argued that the statutory notice did not meet the legal requirements under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act, entitling the respondent to discharge. The MM dismissed these objections, holding that the discrepancy in words and figures was a matter for trial, and the respondent was duly summoned. However, the ASJ, in revision, set aside the MM’s order on 17-02-2021, ruling that the complainant had failed to establish the exact amount payable, creating ambiguity in the case.
Reliance was placed on Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, where the Supreme Court upheld that Section 139 creates a rebuttable presumption, ensuring the credibility of negotiable instruments. The petitioner also cited Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal, (2000) 2 SCC 380 which clarified that minor discrepancies in the amount demanded in the notice and cheque do not invalidate proceedings under Section 138.
The Court remarked that “the error in writing the correct figure in words, would not at this stage, make the cheque invalid especially when no Reply has been given by Respondent No.2 to the Legal Notice to refute his liability and has not questioned the Notice making a demand of Rs.4,65,000/-. The Complaint is sought to be defeated on the technical ground of error in mentioning the correct figure of the cheque in words, which cannot be a justiciable ground for discharge, but merits a Trial.”
The Court observed that the primary issue revolved around the legal validity of the demand notice and the interpretation of Section 18 of the NI Act and noted that the legal notice clearly mentioned the dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 4,65,000/-, and the bank return memo confirmed this amount. The Court opined that while Section 18 states that words take precedence over figures in case of discrepancy, in the present case, the mistake in writing the correct figure in words appeared inadvertent rather than indicative of a different amount.
The Court further held that even if the date on the cheque was overwritten, the bank did not treat it as a material alteration, and thus, it could not be a ground for discharge without a trial. Additionally, the absence of a reply from Respondent 2 to the legal notice strengthened the petitioner’s case.
The Court set aside the order dated 17-02-2021 passed by the ASJ, holding that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was maintainable despite the discrepancy in the amount mentioned in words and figures. The Court emphasized that technical defects should not defeat the object of the NI Act, which aims to ensure the credibility of negotiable instruments. The matter was remanded to the MM for trial. The parties were directed to appear before the MM on 20-03-2025 for further proceedings.
[Nitesh Yadav v State NCT of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 1140/2021, decided on 10-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Shafiq Khan, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for RespondentState Mr. Rajpal Singh & Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
