Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisionary Jurisdiction (Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta)

Order Date: 16‑09‑2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Tigerhill Vinimay Private Limited & Ors. (petitioners) vs. Pankaj Ladia (opposite party).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Petitioners filed a revisional application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash of complaint C.S. 107429 of 2018 (Sections 138/141 NI Act) and setting aside an interim compensation order dated 20‑06‑2022.
  • Background: Petitioners, directors of Tigerhill Vinimay, owned 123.79 satak of land in Hooghly and attempted to acquire an adjoining 179.25 decimal agricultural plot from the opposite party. The opposite party provided only photocopies of title deeds and ROR, no originals or 30‑year ROR history. Relying on these, petitioners paid Rs 1,58,45,971 via post‑dated cheque No. 816664 dated 03‑09‑2018 (Axis Bank, Dalhousie Branch).
  • Cancellation & Dishonour: After due‑diligence revealed the opposite party was not the true owner, petitioners cancelled the deal and demanded return of the cheque. The opposite party deposited the cheque; it was returned marked “Funds Insufficient.” Petitioners stopped payment.
  • Criminal Complaint: Opposite party filed C.S. 107429/2018 under Sections 138/141 NI Act; cognizance taken on 31‑12‑2018; summons issued for 21‑02‑2019; petitioners obtained bail with sureties of Rs 10,000 each.
  • Interim Compensation: On 08‑08‑2022 the trial court allowed a Section 143A petition, directing petitioners to pay 15 % of the cheque amount (Rs 23,77,000) as interim compensation within 60 days.
  • Petitioners’ Contentions: No enforceable debt existed; the complaint was retaliatory, the opposite party suppressed title documents, and the cheque was issued only as a conditional advance with a promise of refund.
  • Opposite Party’s Contentions: The cheque represented payment of lawful consideration for the land; the complaint and interim compensation order were proper; the trial court should proceed with punishment.
  • Legal Submissions: Petitioners relied on Indu Airways Pvt. Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (2014) stating that an advance cheque for a cancelled contract does not attract Section 138 liability. Opposite party cited several precedents supporting the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The court observed that the cheque was issued, presented, dishonoured, statutory notice was served, and complaint filed within time—satisfying basic ingredients of Section 138. The presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was drawn for a debt/l liability stands unless rebutted with cogent evidence at trial. The court held that the petitioners’ denial of liability is a defence that must be proved during trial, not at the revisional stage.
  • Presumption Emphasis: Citing Renuka v. State of Maharashtra and Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, the court reiterated that the burden shifts to the drawer to disprove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and this burden cannot be discharged by mere denial at the pre‑trial stage.
  • Conclusion on Revisional Jurisdiction: The court found no ground to exercise its power under Sections 397/401/482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, as the prima‑facie conditions for offence under Section 138 were met.

Final Outcome

  • The revisional application (CRR No. 3282/2022) is dismissed; connected applications are also disposed.
  • The interim order directing payment of Rs 23,77,000 is vacated.
  • The matter is remitted to the trial court for continuation of proceedings, where petitioners may raise evidence to rebut the statutory presumption.
  • A copy of the judgment is to be sent to the learned trial court for appropriate action.

Topics: Negotiable Instruments Act, Cheque Dishonour, Real Estate Transaction