The Supreme Court’s Sanjabij Tari Judgment: A Complete Reset of Cheque Dishonour Litigation in India
Introduction
India’s cheque dishonour ecosystem has long been overburdened, inefficient, and structurally unsustainable. For more than a decade, cases under Section 138 have occupied an inordinate amount of judicial resources in certain metropolitan courts, with nearly half of all pending criminal cases involving cheque bounce issues. As of September 2025, Delhi had 6.5 lakh pending cases, Mumbai had 1.17 lakhs, and Kolkata had 2.65 lakhs.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, delivered on 25 September 2025, marks a pivotal development. This decision not only addresses doctrinal inconsistencies but also revamps the procedural framework, technology incorporation, and administrative supervision of litigation under the Act.
Background of the Case
The complainant claimed to have given a friendly loan of ₹6 lakhs. The accused issued a cheque which was dishonoured. While the Trial Court and Sessions Court convicted the accused, the High Court acquitted him. The Supreme Court reversed the acquittal and used the case to issue wide-ranging reforms.
Doctrinal Clarifications
1. Statutory Presumptions Reaffirmed
Once the signature is admitted, Sections 118 and 139 create a presumption of legally enforceable debt. The burden lies on the accused to rebut.
2. Cash Loan Validity
Violation of Section 269SS of the IT Act does not make the debt unenforceable. It only attracts tax penalties.
3. Limits on Revisional Jurisdiction
High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence like appellate courts unless findings are perverse.
4. Silence to Statutory Notice
Failure to reply to the Section 138 notice is a significant adverse circumstance.
5. Blank Cheque Defence Rejected
The plea that a cheque was given blank for loan purposes was termed unbelievable.
Procedural Reforms
- Hybrid service of summons (physical + digital)
- QR/UPI payment links on summons
- Mandatory synopsis in complaints
- Elimination of pre-cognizance inquiry
- Summary trial as default
- Early interim compensation (Section 143A)
- Post-summons hearings in physical courts
- Expansion of evening courts
Administrative Oversight
Dashboards, High Court committees, and structured monitoring mechanisms have been mandated to ensure accountability.
Revised Compounding Costs
- Before defence evidence: 0%
- After defence evidence: 5%
- In appeal/revision: 7.5%
- Before Supreme Court: 10%
Conclusion
This judgment modernises cheque dishonour litigation by restoring doctrinal clarity, streamlining procedure, integrating technology, and encouraging early settlement. It represents a structural reboot of NI Act enforcement in India.
