Director sought quashing of a Section 138 NI Act complaint concerning dishonoured cheques, contending they were security cheques and no enforceable debt existed. The High Court held such defences involve disputed facts for trial and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~90
Through: Mr. Akhil Shankhwar, Mr. Vardan Mittal, Advocates
versus
ASUJA ESERV PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shriram Tiwary, Mr. Prafulla, Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
CRL.M.A. 29609-29610/2025 ( Exemptions )
CRL.M.C. 7054/2025 & CRL.M.A. 29611/2025 (for stay)
1 “BNSS”
2 “CrPC”
CRL.M.C. 7054/2025 Page 1 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 14:34:30
Limited and ors. initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the JMFC (NI Act), THC, Delhi.
3 “the Company”
4 “MoU”
CRL.M.C. 7054/2025 Page 2 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 14:34:30
defences now put forth, namely, that the cheques were issued only as security, that the Complainant did not fulfil its investment obligations, and that part-payments had already been made, turn on disputed questions of fact that must be established through evidence. The reliance on Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel is misplaced. That decision arose in an appeal where both the Trial Court and the High Court had upheld an acquittal, after full trial. The findings on the question of legally enforceable debt were rendered on the basis of evidence adduced by parties. At this pre-trial stage, such factual questions cannot be adjudicated upon while considering a quashing petition. 8. It is well-settled that once issuance and dishonour of the cheque are admitted or not in dispute, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act operate in favour of the complainant. Whether these presumptions stand rebutted is a matter to be tested at trial. A bare assertion that the cheque was given as security or that the liability stood reduced does not, in itself, furnish a basis to quash proceedings at the threshold.
5 (2023) 1 SCC 578.
CRL.M.C. 7054/2025 Page 3 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 14:34:30
the merits of the parties’ respective contentions, which shall be determined by the Trial Court in accordance with law.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2025/ab
CRL.M.C. 7054/2025 Page
4 of 4
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/11/2025 at 14:34:30
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a quashing petition can be entertained where defences of security cheques and no legally enforceable debt raise disputed questions of fact.
Whether the complaint satisfied the foundational requirements under Section 138 NI Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr.Distinguished¶7
(2023) 1 SCC 578 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Manikant Lawania
Asuja Eserv Private Limited
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
