Cheque bounce case - Misreading of pleadings and coming to wrong conclusion liable to be set aside = The High Court mainly referred to the assertion in the complaint that the security cheques were demanded in response to which the accused had issued three signed blank cheques and stated if the amount is not returned within two years then by presenting the cheques the same may be encashed . This assertion was assumed by the High Court to mean that the cheques were given only by way of security. Having said that, the High Court proceeded to hold that the �security� offered was not for the discharge of any debt or any liability.= In our opinion, the High Court has muddled the entire issue. The averment in the complaint does indicate that the signed cheques were handed over by the accused to the complainant. The cheques were given by way of security, is a matter of defence. Further, it was not for the discharge of any debt or any liability is also a matter of defence. The relevant facts to countenance the defence will have to be proved - that such security could not be treated as debt or other liability of the accused. That would be a triable issue. We say so because, handing over of the cheques by way of security per se would not extricate the accused from the discharge of liability arising from such cheques.Suffice it to observe, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny . The same is, therefore, set aside.

1
REPORTABLE   
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1382-1383  OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 1365-1366/2019 )
M/S WOMB LABORATORIES PVT LTD  ...APPELLANT(S)
   VERSUS
VIJAY AHUJA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These   appeals   take   exception   to   the
Judgment   and   Order   dated   23 rd
  July,   2018   passed   by
the   High   Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi   in   Crl.M.C.
Nos. 3084/2015 and 3086/2015 whereby the proceedings
initiated   against   respondent   No.1   for   the   offence
punishable   under   Section   138   of   the   Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 came to be quashed.
3.  The   High   Court   mainly   referred   to   the
assertion   in   the   complaint   that   the   security
cheques   were   demanded   in   response   to   which   the
accused   had   issued   three   signed   blank   cheques   and
stated   if   the   amount   is   not   returned   within   two
years   then   by   presenting   the   cheques   the   same   may

2
be encashed . This assertion was assumed by the High
Court   to   mean   that   the   cheques   were   given   only   by
way   of   security.   Having   said   that,   the   High   Court
proceeded   to   hold   that   the   �security�   offered   was
not for the discharge of any debt or any liability.
Resultantly,   it   came   to   hold   that   the   action   under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
cannot proceed against the accused any further.
4. We have heard counsel for the parties.
5. In our opinion, the High Court has muddled
the entire issue. The averment in the complaint does
indicate that the signed cheques were handed over by
the   accused   to   the   complainant.   The   cheques   were
given   by   way   of   security,   is   a   matter   of   defence.
Further, it was not for the discharge of any debt or
any   liability   is   also   a   matter   of   defence.   The
relevant facts to countenance the defence will have
to   be   proved   -   that   such   security   could   not   be
treated   as   debt   or   other   liability   of   the   accused.
That   would   be   a   triable   issue.   We   say   so   because,
handing   over   of   the   cheques   by   way   of   security   per
se   would   not   extricate   the   accused   from   the
discharge of liability arising from such cheques.

3
6. Suffice   it   to   observe,   the   impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot stand the   test   of
judicial   scrutiny .   The   same   is,   therefore,   set
aside.
7.  As   respondent   No.1   has   raised   other
contention(s)   in   the   quashing   petition,   we   deem   it
appropriate to relegate the parties before the High
Court for examining those grounds on its own merits
in accordance with law.
8. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that
in view of the changed legal position, the complaint
must now proceed before the Court at Ahmedabad. Even
this contention may be pursued before the High Court
in the remanded proceedings, which may be dealt with
appropriately.
9. The   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   the   above
terms.
..................,J.
       (A.M. KHANWILKAR)
..................,J.
   (DINESH MAHESHWARI)
   NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

4
ITEM NO.31               COURT NO.7               SECTION II-C
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1365-1366/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  23-07-2018
in CRLMC No. 3084/2015 and CRLMC No. 3086/2015 passed by the High
Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
M/S WOMB LABORATORIES PVT LTD                      Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
VIJAY AHUJA & ANR.                                 Respondent(s)
IA No. 6355/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)

Date : 11-09-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR
Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Garima Sehgal, Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, AOR
Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR
Ms. Mahima C. Shroff, Adv.
Ms. Yashika Verma, Adv
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                              O R D E R
Leave granted.
The   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   terms   of   the
signed order.
In view of the above, pending application(s)
shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU KHAJURIA)
COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI)
COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file.)