23/06/2026
Section 138 NI Act – Recent Useful High Court Ratios (2025–2026)
Bombay High Court
1. Cyrus Noshirwan Kartak v. State of Maharashtra Date: May 2026 Crux: Default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation in a Section 138 case must remain within statutory limits. Sentencing cannot be disproportionate.
2. NI Act Proceedings Continue Despite IBC Bombay High Court Date: 07.10.2025 Crux: Directors and natural persons do not escape liability under Sections 138/141 merely because insolvency proceedings against the company have commenced or concluded.
3. Complainant's One-Day Absence Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court Date: 16.10.2025 Crux: A complaint under Section 138 should not be dismissed merely because the complainant was absent on a single hearing date. Cases should ordinarily be decided on merits.
Delhi High Court
4. Summoning Order Need Not Be Elaborate Date: 03.03.2026 Crux: While issuing summons in a Section 138 complaint, a Magistrate need not write a lengthy order, but the order must show application of mind.
5. Company & Directors Can Be Prosecuted Even If Signatory Dropped Date: 10.02.2026 Crux: Deletion of the cheque signatory from the array of accused does not automatically invalidate proceedings against the company and responsible directors under Sections 138/141 NI Act.
6. Mandatory Demand Notice Date: 05.01.2026 Crux: Compliance with Section 138(b) notice requirements remains mandatory; the complaint must disclose proper demand notice and service particulars.
---
Punjab & Haryana High Court
7. Separate Complaint Maintainable for Each Dishonoured Cheque Date: 01.04.2026 Crux: Each dishonoured cheque gives rise to an independent cause of action. Separate complaints are maintainable even if cheques arise from one transaction.
8. Joint Drawer Liable Date: 01.04.2026 Crux: A person who consciously issues a cheque for another's liability may incur Section 138 liability and cannot later avoid responsibility merely because the debt was not originally his own.
9. FIR/Pending Criminal Proceedings No Bar Sukhjinder Singh v. Kuldeep Singh Date: 09.02.2026 Crux: Pendency of an FIR or other criminal proceedings arising from the same transaction does not bar prosecution under Section 138 NI Act.
10. Harwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab Date: 28.01.2026 Crux: High Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482-type jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly in cheque dishonour prosecutions where disputed facts require trial.
Quick Take (Most Valuable for Trial Courts)
1. Separate complaint for each cheque – P&H HC.
2. Directors remain liable despite IBC – Bombay HC.
3. Summoning order need not be lengthy but must show application of mind – Delhi HC.
4. One-day absence of complainant not enough for dismissal – Bombay HC.
5. Signatory dropped ≠ proceedings against company/directors fail – Delhi HC.
