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. Here’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
  • Bank’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

Nicaragua v United States Explained

Landmark ICJ Ruling: Nicaragua v. United States Explained

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a pivotal ruling in the case of Nicaragua v United States on June 27, 1986. This decision significantly shaped international law regarding sovereignty and the use of force. In this case, Nicaragua alleged that the U.S. violated its sovereignty through covert military actions, including support for the Contra rebels and direct military interventions.

Key Facts of the Case

Initially, Nicaragua claimed that the U.S. engaged in a range of unlawful activities starting in 1981. Specifically, these included:

  • Support for the Contras: The U.S. allegedly recruited and armed this rebel group to undermine Nicaragua’s government.
  • Direct Military Actions: Moreover, the U.S. was accused of mining Nicaraguan ports and conducting aerial incursions.
  • Economic Sanctions: Additionally, Nicaragua argued that U.S. sanctions were designed to destabilize its economy.

Nicaragua contended that these actions violated key principles of international law, such as the prohibition on the use of force and the non-intervention principle, as outlined in the United Nations Charter.

Jurisdiction and Procedural History

In April 1984, Nicaragua filed its application with the ICJ, asserting that the Court had jurisdiction based on customary international law. Conversely, the U.S. contested this, arguing its actions were justified under the right to collective self-defense in response to Nicaragua’s support for insurgents in El Salvador. However, the ICJ affirmed its jurisdiction, emphasizing the applicability of customary law.

The Court’s Decision on Nicaragua v United States

Ultimately, the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua, finding that the United States violated international law through its military and paramilitary activities. The Court’s key findings included:

  • Violation of Sovereignty: First and foremost, the U.S. breached Nicaragua’s sovereignty by supporting the Contras and conducting direct military actions.
  • Prohibition on Use of Force: Furthermore, the U.S. actions were deemed contrary to Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.
  • Rejection of Self-Defense Claim: Finally, the Court determined that there was no sufficient evidence of an armed attack by Nicaragua that would warrant U.S. intervention.

Significance of the Ruling

This ruling is crucial for several reasons:

  • Affirmation of Customary International Law: It reinforced the importance of customary norms against the use of force and non-intervention, independent of treaty obligations.
  • Clarification of Self-Defense: The Court outlined strict criteria for legitimate self-defense, emphasizing necessity and proportionality.
  • Impact on Superpower Policies: Notably, the decision challenged interventionist policies of powerful states, asserting that international law applies universally.

Aftermath

Despite the ICJ’s order for the U.S. to cease its actions and provide reparations, the United States did not comply with the ruling. Nevertheless, this landmark case remains influential in discussions of state sovereignty, intervention, and the legal boundaries of self-defense.

In conclusion, the Nicaragua v. United States case serves as a vital reference point in international law. Ultimately, it demonstrates the ICJ’s role in upholding legal norms and principles in the face of state power.


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 – 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 – 9 PM (Mon-Sat)