ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos.48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 of 2024 as all the appeals emanate from a common order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi, whereby five different complaints instituted by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “N.I. Act”) and the summoning orders passed against the respondents, have been quashed.

3. As per the office report, the respondents have been duly served, but no one has entered appearance.

4. We find from the impugned order of the High Court that the complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been quashed solely on the ground that there was no factual basis to show existing debt or liability. The High Court has in this regard referred to paragraph no.3 of the complaints, which are similarly worded, and consequently held that in the absence of necessary averments in the complaint regarding the nature of transaction between the parties, the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were liable to be quashed.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant refers to paragraph 3 of the complaint in the lead case, which reads as follows:

“3. That complainant and accused were known to each other and both parties had substantial business transactions and in lieu of the business correspondence and financial transactions complainant company had sent payments to accused persons through RTGS and in discharge of part liability towards complainant co. you accused no. 3 being the Director of accused no. 1 and in connivance, consent and knowledge of accused no. 2, 4 and 5 issued the following cheques in favour of my client as under:-

6. On a bare reading thereof, we find that the complainant has specifically averred that there were financial transactions between the complainant-Company and the accused persons and “in discharge of part liability towards complainant-Company……….”, the accused persons in connivance with each other issued the cheques (details are duly mentioned), which were eventually dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and there being difference in signature. It is explained by learned senior counsel that the expression “part liability” has been consciously used as five separate complaints were filed and each complaint was confined to a part of the total liability.

7. In our considered opinion, all that a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act requires to contain is such factual averments as are necessary to satisfy the ingredients of the said provision, namely, that the cheque/money bill which has been dishonoured was issued to discharge full or partial pre-existing debt liability. It is not be the pre-requisite of Section 138 of the N.I. Act to plead evidence in the complaint itself. Once a specific plea has been taken, it can be later on substantiated by adducing evidence at an appropriate stage. On a reading of paragraph 3 of the complaint, we are satisfied that the appellant has made the necessary averments in order to prima facie attract the consequences under provisions of the N.I. Act. The High Court, thus, fell in error in misconstruing the averments made in the complaint(s).

8. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 17.07.2019 of the High Court is set aside and all the five complaints filed by the appellant against the respondents under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, are restored to their original numbers and files. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi is directed to proceed with those complaints in accordance with law.

Appeals allowed.

********