The Delhi High Court upholds rejection of plea to summon SBI officials, holding that even if the account was closed by the bank pursuant to RBI directions, the admitted lack of sufficient funds would still not support the accused’s defence. The Court declined to interfere with the Trial Court’s order refusing to reopen defence evidence in multiple cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Court noted that the application was moved at a highly advanced stage of the proceedings when the matters were already pending for judgment before the Trial Court. A crucial factor considered by the Court was that the account balance available at the relevant time was only about Rs. 8,383, which was far below the cheque amounts and therefore insufficient to honour the cheques.
The Court held that, in such circumstances, the reason for closure of the account became immaterial, as the cheques could not have been honoured even if the account had remained operational.
Briefly, the dispute arose from multiple complaints filed by S A Infotech Private Limited under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheques issued by Ch Lekh Raj Educational and Charitable Trust and others. The cheques were returned unpaid with the remark “Account Closed”.
The petitioners contended that the bank account was not closed by them voluntarily. According to them, the account had been closed by the bank in compliance with RBI instructions and circulars. They therefore sought to summon officials of State Bank of India, Yamuna Nagar Branch and produce bank records to establish the circumstances in which the account was closed.
An application for summoning the bank officials under Section 311 CrPC/Section 348 BNSS was moved before the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 24 October 2026, leading the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of that order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that where the account balance is admittedly grossly insufficient to honour the cheques, the question whether the account was closed voluntarily by the drawer or pursuant to directions of the bank/RBI becomes immaterial for the purpose of the defence sought to be raised.
The Court observed that even if the petitioners’ contention were accepted and the account closure was assumed to have been carried out by the bank pursuant to RBI directions, that fact would not assist the petitioners because the account itself did not contain sufficient funds to meet the cheque liability.
