Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot Be Allowed To Degenerate Into 'Interminable Litigation': Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has observed that proceedings in cheque dishonour cases cannot be allowed to "degenerate into interminable litigation", while dealing with a complaint instituted in 2004 that remained pending for more than two decades.

Justice C.S. Dias made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by the accused seeking to stay and quash the prosecution and directing the Trial Court to dispose of the complaint within two months.

“The object of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to instil confidence in commercial transactions and to ensure prompt redressal of grievances arising from dishonoured cheques. Parliament has expressly mandated that trials under Section 138 be conducted summarily and concluded expeditiously. A complaint instituted in 2004, still pending in 2026, is antithetical to legislative intent,” the Court observed.

“The justice delivery system cannot permit proceedings under Section 138 to degenerate into interminable litigation. Delay undermines not only the complainant's rights but also the public's confidence in the administration of justice,” it further observed.

The case arose from a complaint filed on November 10, 2004 alleging that a cheque for ₹8 lakh issued by the accused was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds.

According to the complainant, the amount remained unpaid despite the issuance of a statutory demand notice, leading to the institution of criminal proceedings.

The complainant filed his proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination in December 2005. However, when the matter came up before the High Court, his cross-examination had still not been completed.

Before the High Court, the accused contended that the original documents relied on by the complainant were unavailable and that photocopies had been marked in evidence. Separately, the stay application filed before the Trial Court was founded on the pendency of an appeal before the High Court against a decree passed in an inter-party civil suit concerning the same cheque transaction.

The Trial Court dismissed the application seeking a stay. That order prompted the accused to move the High Court, where she sought to quash the complaint, the proceedings sheet, and the order refusing a stay.

Before examining those challenges, the High Court sought a report from the Trial Court on the status of the case and the circumstances in which the documents came to be marked.

The report stated that the documents had been marked on June 12, 2006, while the application for stay was filed nearly two decades later, in January 2026.

Examining the record, the Court noted that the matter had been repeatedly adjourned even though it had been posted on several occasions specifically for the complainant's cross-examination.

“A scrutiny of the proceedings sheet reveals that repeated adjournments have been granted for various reasons, notwithstanding the fact that the matter was listed on several occasions specifically for the complainant's cross-examination, often as a last chance,” the Court observed.

Rejecting the contention that the criminal proceedings should await the outcome of the civil appeal, the Court referred to Supreme Court decisions holding that civil and criminal proceedings arising from the same transaction can continue simultaneously and independently.

The Court also held that the petitioner could not challenge the marking of documents after remaining silent for nearly two decades.

“Having remained silent for two decades, the petitioner cannot turn around and assail the marking of the documents,” the Court held.

Finding no irrationality, illegality, or error in the Trial Court's order declining to stay the proceedings, the court declined to interfere. It also found no ground to quash the complaint, observing that the complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of the offence and that the defence raised issues to be addressed during trial.

“The present proceeding appears to be filed with a view to protracting the final determination of the complaint,” the Court observed while dismissing the petition.

The court directed the trial court to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of production of the High Court's order.

For Petitioner: Advocate R Anilkumar