Case Note: Smt. Rama Oberoi v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 6228/2025 (Delhi HC, 3 Sept 2025)

I. Introduction

The Delhi High Court in Smt. Rama Oberoi v. State (NCT of Delhi) reaffirmed important principles governing cheque dishonour litigation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”). The Court clarified (i) the permissibility of pursuing concurrent civil and criminal remedies, (ii) computation of limitation under Section 138, and (iii) the limits of High Court’s jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

II. Facts and Procedural History

The petitioner, Smt. Rama Oberoi, was summoned by the trial magistrate on 12 June 2025 in a complaint filed under Section 138 NI Act. She approached the High Court challenging the summons, contending that:

1. The complaint was premature, allegedly filed before expiry of the statutory notice period.

2. The cheques in question did not bear her genuine signatures.

3. Since a civil suit for recovery of the same dues had already been filed, the criminal complaint was not maintainable.

III. Judgment

Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the petition as frivolous and imposed costs of ₹10,000, holding:

1. Concurrent Remedies: Civil and criminal remedies are not mutually exclusive. A civil suit enforces civil liability to repay debt, while criminal prosecution seeks penal consequences for dishonour of cheque.

2. Limitation: The statutory framework provides 15 days for payment post-service of notice (Proviso (c) to Section 138), and upon default, one month to file complaint (Section 142(b)). In this case, notice was served on 22 September 2022, the payment window expired on 7 October 2022, and the complaint filed on 29 October 2022 was within limitation.

3. Disputed Signatures: Whether the cheques were genuinely signed by the petitioner is a matter for trial. The High Court, while exercising inherent powers, cannot embark upon a “mini-trial.”

IV. Analysis

1. Civil and Criminal Concurrency

The Court’s approach aligns with established precedent that civil and criminal liabilities arising from dishonoured cheques are distinct but concurrent. The Supreme Court in ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer held that criminal prosecution under Section 138 is maintainable notwithstanding pendency of civil proceedings. Similarly, in P. Swami v. P. Arumugam, the Court reiterated that remedies under NI Act are additional to civil recovery.

2. Limitation and Premature Complaints

The argument that complaints must wait for “45 days” was rejected. The Court correctly read the statutory scheme as “15 + 30 days.” This interpretation follows Sil Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, which clarified that cause of action arises only after expiry of the 15-day compliance window. In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, the Supreme Court further elaborated the sequential components of a Section 138 offence, providing clarity on limitation.

3. Quashing and Disputed Signatures

The petitioner’s claim of forged signatures was rejected at the threshold. Consistent with State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, inherent powers are not intended to adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The Court also followed M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals and HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida, where similar objections were held triable.

V. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Rama Oberoi reinforces the settled jurisprudence that civil recovery suits do not bar criminal prosecution for cheque dishonour, clarifies computation of limitation, and restricts misuse of quashing petitions. By imposing costs, the Court also signaled its disapproval of frivolous attempts to derail proceedings.

Endnotes

1. ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer, (2002) 6 SCC 426.

2. P. Swami v. P. Arumugam, (2007) 15 SCC 175.

3. Sil Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, (1999) 4 SCC 567.

4. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510.

5. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129.

6. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

7. M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals, (2002) 1 SCC 234.

8. HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida, (2015) 11 SCC 776.

9. Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441.