Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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

Latest Legal News