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

Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Criminal AppealDecided 26 Apr 2022
Criminal Appeal Nos. 694-695 of 2022
K.M. Joseph · Hrishikesh Roy

Background

The complainant had invested money in the appellant's company and received shares. When a dispute arose, it was agreed the invested money would be returned and the complainant's shares transferred back. Four post-dated cheques were issued by the appellant as part of this arrangement, but when the complainant presented one of them, it was dishonoured for "insufficient funds," leading to a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The appellant argued the cheques were only security/contingent cheques for a share buyback and should not have been encashed before the shares were transferred back, and sought to have the case quashed by the Delhi High Court, which refused.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's refusal to quash the criminal proceedings. It held that once a cheque and signature are undisputed, Section 139 of the N.I. Act raises a legal presumption that it was issued in discharge of a debt, and this presumption can only be rebutted by evidence at trial, not weighed away by the High Court at a pre-trial quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC. The Court explained that share transfers in India typically involve a time lag between payment and formal transfer, so the "shares not yet transferred" defence was a factual dispute for trial, not grounds for quashing. The power to quash under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly, and factual defences of this kind must be tested through evidence, not assumed true at the threshold.

Lesson Learnt

If you issue a cheque that bounces, courts will presume it was for a genuine debt unless you can prove otherwise at trial. You cannot get a cheque-bounce case dismissed at the outset merely by raising a factual defence; that defence must be proved through evidence before the trial court.

Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware