Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Atamjit Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Not available · 2024 INSC 84Decided 22 Jan 2024
Not available

Background

The appellant, a complainant, had lent money in 2011-related transactions to Respondent No. 2, who issued a cheque for Rs. 20 lakh in 2017 that was later dishonoured, leading to a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Delhi High Court quashed the trial court's summoning order and the underlying complaint, reasoning that the debt was already time-barred by the date the cheque was issued and so could not be treated as a "legally enforceable debt."

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that whether an underlying debt is time-barred is a mixed question of law and fact that must be decided on evidence led during trial. It is not something a High Court can conclusively determine while exercising its limited quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on its earlier decision in Yogesh Jain vs. Sumesh Chadha, the Court reiterated that once a cheque is dishonoured, the accused bears the burden of rebutting the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, and that this determination belongs to the trial, not a pre-trial quashing petition. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order and restored the complaint to the trial court.

Lesson Learnt

Defences like "the debt was already time-barred" in a cheque-bounce case cannot be used to get the case thrown out at the threshold: such factual disputes must be argued and proved at trial, not decided in a summary quashing petition.

Atamjit Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware