Latest 2025-26 _ Negotiable Instrument Judgement.

📌 1. SC — Conviction under Section 138 not sustainable once parties enter into voluntary settlement

Citation/Case: Supreme Court — Virender Singh Dongwal v. Manju Aggarwal (Nov 2025)
Key Point: If the parties have voluntarily settled and signed a compromise deed for full and final settlement of the cheque amount, conviction under Section 138 cannot be sustained and can be quashed. The court held Section 138 offences are quasi-criminal and compoundable under Section 147, and conviction can be set aside on settlement with costs.

📌 2. SC — Cash transaction debt above ₹20,000 is legally enforceable

Case: Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025)
Key Point: Overruled the Kerala HC view that cash loans above ₹20,000 are not enforceable; the Supreme Court held cash transaction debts can be ‘legally enforceable’ for Section 138 purposes. Violation of Section 269SS IT Act does not prevent prosecution under NI Act.

📌 3. SC — Criminal court’s finding in Section 138 binds parties in subsequent litigation

Case: S.C. Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 493)
Key Point: A finding in Section 138 proceedings is binding on both parties in subsequent cases involving the same issue/facts (e.g., other criminal proceedings), though res judicata in criminal cases must still be reconciled with statutory principles.

📌 4. SC — No power to recall summoning order in revision & shield under SICA rejected

Case: SC Judgment (2 Sept 2025)
Key Points:

• Revisional courts do not have power to recall summoning orders in Section 138 cases.

• Protection under SICA (Sick Industrial Companies Act) cannot be used as a shield against criminal prosecution for cheque dishonour.

📌 5. SC — Strict compliance of statutory notice requirements (reported but needs citation validation)

Reported: Supreme Court held that the demand notice under Section 138(b) must correctly mention the exact cheque amount, and if it does not do so, the complaint may be held not maintainable. This underscores strict compliance in penal statutes like Section 138.

📌 6. SC — Maintainability of Section 138 complaints involving partners (referenced in SCC Times roundup)

Reported: In Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar (2025) 10 SCC 96, SC held that a Section 138 complaint can proceed where partners are accused even if the partnership firm is not arraigned (expanding scope under Section 141).

💡 How to quote these in exam answers

For Principles:

“Once the parties enter into a full and final settlement evidenced by a compromise deed, conviction under Section 138 is unsustainable,” — Supreme Court (Virender Singh Dongwal v. Manju Aggarwal, 2025).

For ‘legally enforceable debt’ debates:

A cash transaction above ₹20,000 may be a legally enforceable debt for Section 138, even if it violates Income-Tax law, as held by the Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025).

For procedural safeguards:

Summoning orders in Section 138 cases cannot be recalled by revisional courts, and statutory jurisdictional lines must be respected (SC, 2 Sept 2025).

For evidentiary binding:

Findings of the trial court in Section 138 proceedings bind the parties in later proceedings on the same facts (S.C. Garg v. State of U.P., 2025).

🧾 Quick List of Latest SC Judgments (2025–2026)

1. Voluntary settlement quashes Section 138 conviction — Dongwal v. Aggarwal (Nov 2025).

2. Cash debts legally enforceable even if over ₹20K — Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025).

3. Binding effect of criminal court findings — S.C. Garg v. State of U.P., 2025.

4. No recall of summoning orders & SICA shield rejected — SC (2 Sept 2025).

5. Strict notice requirements for maintainability — SC (2025) (notice amount accuracy).

6. Partners can be accused even without firm arraigned — Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar (2025)