Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

Cheque Issued as Security, When Dishonored, Attracts Section 138 N.I. Act – Delhi High Court Upholds Legal Obligation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has reinforced the legal obligations pertaining to the dishonor of cheques, even when issued as security. The judgment was passed by Hon’ble Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar in the case of Payal Malhotra vs. Sulekh Chand.

In the verdict pronounced on November 29, the court emphasized that a cheque issued for security, upon dishonor, does indeed fall under the ambit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Justice Bhatnagar noted, “It is trite law that when a cheque given for the purpose of security is dishonored, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, will be attracted.”

The case revolved around the petitioner, Payal Malhotra, seeking the quashing of proceedings against her in a case of a dishonored cheque for Rs. 5,82,217, claimed to have been issued as a security measure and not as part of a legally enforceable debt.

The petitioner argued that the cheque was misused by the respondent, Sulekh Chand, and that there was no existing debt or liability. However, the court pointed out that the accused’s defense can only be proved in a court of law and cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

“The parameters of the jurisdiction of the High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC, are now almost well-settled. Although it has wide amplitude, a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise,” Justice Bhatnagar remarked, highlighting the limited scope of the High Court’s intervention in such matters.

The judgment referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including NEPC Micon Limited and Others vs. Magma Leasing Limited, which reiterate the serious consequences of cheque dishonor.

Date of Decision: 29 November 2023

PAYAL MALHOTRA VS SULEKH CHAND

Similar News