Supreme Court Holds That Multiple Cheque Dishonour Complaints Arising from the Same Transaction Are Maintainable Where Each Dishonour Gives Rise to a Distinct Cause of Action

Case Name: Sumit Bansal v. M/s MGI Developers and Promoters & Anr. (with connected appeals)
Citation: 2026 INSC 40
Date of Judgment/Order: 08 January 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Held: The Supreme Court held that where multiple cheques issued in relation to the same transaction are dishonoured on different dates and are followed by separate statutory notices, each dishonour gives rise to an independent cause of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the High Court cannot quash such complaints at the threshold by treating them as parallel prosecutions or by undertaking a premature evaluation of disputed facts.

Summary: The appeals arose from judgments of the Delhi High Court partially quashing and partially sustaining multiple cheque dishonour complaints filed by the complainant in relation to an agreement to sell commercial units. The complainant had received several cheques issued both by the proprietorship firm and by its proprietor in his personal capacity as guarantee, all of which were dishonoured on different dates for insufficiency of funds or exceeding arrangement. The High Court quashed one complaint on the ground that it related to the same liability as another pending complaint, while refusing to quash the remaining complaints. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of Section 138 of the NI Act, the presumption under Section 139, and the limited scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, and held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into disputed factual questions and by treating distinct cheque dishonours as a single cause of action.

Decision: The appeal filed by the complainant was allowed and the quashing of Complaint Case No. 3298 of 2019 was set aside with a direction to restore the complaint for trial, while the connected appeals filed by the accused were dismissed, and it was clarified that all complaints shall proceed independently in accordance with law, leaving all defences open to be adjudicated at trial, with all pending applications disposed of.