The Supreme Court (SC) addressed the issue of whether the complaint filed by a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, suppressing material facts, is valid in Rekha Sharad Ushir v Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd [ 2025 INSC 399].
In the case the SC found that the respondent suppressed crucial documents, including letters from the appellant requesting loan documents, which were not disclosed in the complaint or the statement on oath. This suppression constituted an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the court quashed the complaint and the order of cognizance, allowing the appeal while leaving open other remedies for the respondent to recover the alleged debt.
It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making.
Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court. In arriving at the decision the SC relied on the SC decision in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath and Others [1993: INSC:344].
This was a case where very material documents in the form of two letters addressed by the Appellant were suppressed in the complaint and the statement on oath Under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In the statement on oath under the Section 200 CrPC, the Respondent-complainant vaguely referred to a ‘false notice reply’, but a copy of the reply was not produced by the Respondent along with the complaint.
References
- Rekha Sharad Ushir v Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd [ 2025 INSC 399]
- P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath and Others [1993: INSC:344]
