Delhi District Court
Renu Gupta vs Rajesh Kumar on 19 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-03, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 670 of 2025
DLSE010123212025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Renu Gupta
W/o Anil Gupta
R/o J-5, Block South Extn.
Part-I, South Delhi.
New Delhi-110049
.......Revisionist
Versus
Rajesh Kumar
S/o Kiran Pal Singh
R/o 181, Shyamgali Moujpur
Delhi-110053
........Respondent
Instituted on : 17.11.2025
Reserved on : 20.12.2025
CR No.670/2025 Renu Gupta Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 1 of 6
Pronounced on : 19.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal revision has been preferred under section 438 BNSS (397 Cr.P.C.) assailing the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in CC NI Act No. 3649/2023, Renu Gupta v. Rajesh Kumar, whereby complaint of revisionist, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed at the summoning stage.
2. The learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the cheque in question was an "old/invalid cheque", issued after the merger of the drawee bank, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory requirement under proviso (a) to Section 138 NI Act.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant/revisionist was that the accused issued two cheques dated 22.01.2023 and 27.01.2023, which upon presentation were returned unpaid with the remarks "old cheque", the drawee bank having merged earlier and the validity of old cheques having expired as per RBI directions.
4. The learned Trial Court framed the core issue as to whether proceedings under Section 138 NI Act could lie where the cheque CR No.670/2025 Renu Gupta Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 2 of 6 itself had ceased to be valid due to bank merger and, applying recent judicial precedents, dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint at the threshold and that the question of validity of cheque due to bank merger is a disputed question of fact, which ought to have been examined during trial.
7. Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sh. Premanand Prusty v. Smt. Sita Devi, decided on 17.11.2023, to contend that proceedings under Section 138 NI Act ought not to be rejected merely on the plea of bank merger.
8. Heard. Record perused.
9. It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is not appellate in nature. Interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, or results in miscarriage of justice.
10. The precise legal issue involved in the present case stands CR No.670/2025 Renu Gupta Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 3 of 6 directly and authoritatively answered by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ganta Kavitha Devi & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 5115 wherein it has been held in clear terms:
"From the perusal of Section 138 of the NI Act, it is clear that if any invalid cheque is presented before the Bank and the same is dishonoured, it cannot be said that there is liability under Section 138 of the NI Act."
11. It was further held in the said judgment :
"As per proviso (a) of Section 138 of the NI Act, if the cheque itself is invalid, the Bank is bound to dishonour the same. Hence, dishonouring such cheque will not attract liability under Section 138 of the NI Act."
12. The ratio laid down is unambiguous: validity of the cheque on the date of presentation is a jurisdictional pre-condition, and if the cheque itself is invalid owing to bank merger and expiry of RBI- prescribed cut-off, prosecution under Section 138 NI Act is not maintainable as such cheque in my view would cease to be a Negotiable instrument.
13. The reliance placed by the revisionist on Sh. Premanand Prusty v. Smt. Sita Devi is misplaced. In Premanand Prusty (supra), CR No.670/2025 Renu Gupta Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 4 of 6 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court noted that the accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque as well as on promissory notes and undertakings, and that the existence of a legally enforceable debt was supported by documentary material. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court declined to quash the proceedings primarily on the ground that the issues raised involved mixed questions of fact and law, observing that such issues ought to be adjudicated during trial.
14. Significantly, the Delhi High Court did not lay down any legal proposition that an invalid cheque issued after bank merger would nonetheless attract Section 138 NI Act. Rather, the Court consciously refrained from deciding the legal effect of bank merger on cheque validity.
15. In contrast, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ganta Kavitha Devi (supra) has squarely and directly ruled on the legal consequence of dishonour of an invalid cheque post-merger, rendering continuation of proceedings impermissible.
16. The impugned order in the present case is founded on admitted dates of merger, RBI directives, and the invalidity of the cheque itself, and does not involve disputed factual questions requiring trial.
17. Accordingly, the judgment in Premanand Prusty (supra) CR No.670/2025 Renu Gupta Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 5 of 6 stands clearly distinguishable on facts as well as in law.
18. In my view, the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the statutory requirement under proviso (a) to Section 138 NI Act and has applied the correct legal test.
19. No perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity is found in the impugned order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
20. In view of the authoritative ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ganta Kavitha Devi & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and the clear distinction from the Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by the revisionist, the present revision petition is devoid of merit.
21. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition stands dismissed.
22. TCR, if any, be sent back along with copy of this judgment.
23. Revision file be consigned to record room after Digitally due signed by compliance. ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date:
2026.01.19 Announced in the open (Anuj Agrawal) 12:08:04 +0530 court on 19th January 2026 Additional Sessions Judge-03, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi CR No.670/2025 Renu Gupta Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No. 6 of 6