Cheque Bounce Case: Step-by-Step Legal Action & Remedies

Cheque Bounce Case: Step-by-Step Legal Action & Remedies

A cheque bounce, also known as dishonor of cheque, is a serious offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. If a cheque issued by a drawer is dishonored, the payee has the legal right to take action against the defaulter. Hereโ€™s a step-by-step guide on how to file a cheque bounce case in India.

1. Dishonor of Cheque (Section 138 NI Act)

  • The payee deposits the cheque in their bank for clearance.
  • If the cheque bounces due to insufficient funds or other reasons (e.g., account closed, signature mismatch), the bank issues a cheque return memo specifying the reason for dishonor.

2. Sending a Legal Demand Notice (Section 138, Proviso (b))

  • The payee must send a legal notice to the drawer within 30 days of receiving the cheque return memo.
  • The notice should demand payment of the cheque amount within 15 days.

If the drawer pays within 15 days, no legal action can be taken. If no payment is received, the payee can proceed to file a case.

3. Filing a Criminal Complaint (Section 142 NI Act)

  • If the payment is not received, the payee can file a criminal complaint within 30 days before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) or Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Documents Required:

  • Original bounced cheque
  • Bankโ€™s cheque return memo
  • Copy of legal notice & postal receipt
  • Acknowledgment receipt of legal notice
  • Affidavit & supporting documents

4. Issuance of Summons (Section 204 CrPC)

  • The court will examine the complaint and issue summons to the drawer if satisfied.
  • The summons must be properly served, and the accused must appear before the court.

5. Appearance & Filing of Plea

  • The accused must appear in court and submit their defense.
  • If the accused fails to appear, the court may issue a bailable warrant.

6. Evidence & Trial (Section 143 NI Act & Summary Trial under CrPC)

  • The complainant submits affidavit evidence and supporting documents.
  • The accused has the right to cross-examine the complainant.
  • If a valid defense is raised, the case may proceed to a regular trial.

7. Judgment (Section 138 NI Act)

If the court finds the accused guilty, the following penalties may apply:

  • Imprisonment up to 2 years OR
  • Fine up to twice the cheque amount OR
  • Both imprisonment and fine

If the accused is acquitted, the case is dismissed.

8. Execution of Judgment (Section 431 CrPC & Order XXI CPC)

  • If the court orders a fine or compensation, the accused must pay immediately.
  • If payment is not made, recovery can be done through:
    • Property attachment
    • Salary garnishment
    • Imprisonment (in case of default)

Legal Remedies for Payee & Drawer

1. Criminal Complaint (Section 138 NI Act)

  • Ensures punishment for the drawer.
  • Can result in imprisonment or a fine.

2. Civil Suit for Recovery (Order 37 CPC)

  • The payee can file a summary suit under Order 37 CPC to recover the cheque amount.
  • This is a separate civil remedy alongside the criminal complaint.

3. Alternative Remedies

  • Arbitration (if an agreement exists between parties)
  • Filing for insolvency (if the drawer is unable to pay)

Conclusion

A cheque bounce case requires swift legal action. Sending a legal notice, filing a complaint, and proving the case in court can ensure justice for the payee. Understanding the legal remedies and following the prescribed procedure is crucial to successfully handling a cheque dishonor case.

Written By Ajit Kumar


Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next Article

Act of God – As a General Defences under Tort Law

Introduction

An “Act of God” refers to an extraordinary, natural event that is beyond human control and cannot be anticipated or prevented, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, or other severe weather events. Legally, it is used as a defense in cases where harm or damage occurs due to such events, and the responsible party cannot be held liable because the event was unforeseeable and unavoidable. The defense typically applies when the event occurs unexpectedly and exceeds what could be reasonably anticipated, making it impossible for the defendant to prevent or mitigate the consequences.

For the defense to succeed, the event must meet certain criteria, including being an exceptional natural occurrence, and in some cases, it may require that human actions (such as construction or alterations) did not contribute to or exacerbate the situation. Courts often evaluate whether the event was truly extraordinary and whether the defendant could have taken measures to avoid or reduce the harm.

NICOLAS V. MARSLAND – Extraordinary acts of nature

The defendant constructed some ornamental pools. The region experienced unusually heavy rainfall of a magnitude never experienced before. The pools fled causing damage to the claimantโ€™s property. The court held that the defendant should not be liable for the extraordinary acts of nature (act of god) that could not be anticipated.

GREENOCK CORPORATION V. CALEDONIAN RY. – Criticised and revisited Nicolas

The defendants constructed a pool in the bed of a stream changing the natural course of a stream. Heavy rains led to overflowing of the stream at the pool which damaged the claimantsโ€™ property. It was alleged that the stream would not have overflown had the pond not been constructed obstructing and changing the course of the stream.

Held that rain cannot be regarded as an Act of God. It was the duty of the defendants to make the claimants secure against any injury which they would not have been prone to had nature not been interfered with. If the course of nature was tampered, it is difficult to prove Act of God.

SLATER V. WORTHINGTON CASH STORES – Proximity of claimant

Claimant, who was driving along a road, skidded on the ice and was severely injured. She alleged that the injury was due to Dโ€™s failure to remove the ice which had accumulated on the roof of Dโ€™s shop.

The defence of Act of God was not upheld as the action was reasonably foreseeable and was easily preventable by clearing the snow. It was the shopkeeperโ€™s duty

Conclusion

In conclusion, the “Act of God” defense is a legal concept that allows individuals to avoid liability for harm caused by extraordinary natural events. However, its applicability is not always clear-cut. As seen in Nicolas v. Marsland, where the court accepted the defense for an unprecedented rainfall, it may be upheld when the event is truly unforeseeable and beyond human control. In contrast, cases like Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Ry. and Slater v. Worthington Cash Stores illustrate that the defense may not apply when human actions have altered natural processes or when the event, though severe, is foreseeable and preventable through reasonable measures. Ultimately, whether the defense is successful depends on the specifics of the case, including the nature of the event and the actions (or inactions) of the parties involved.


Mental Incapacity in Contracts โ€“ Section 12 of ICA, 1872 – Read!

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Next Article

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

contact@lawdrishti.com

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

advertise@lawdrishti.com

Timing

Hours: 9 AM โ€“ 9 PM (Mon-Sat)

See the below animation to allow notifications.

Start getting Lawdrishti updates useful for you!

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

Contact us
For Submitting a Post
For Banner ads & admission campaigns
Timing

Hours: 9 AM โ€“ 9 PM (Mon-Sat)