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    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Landlord’s Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt Leads to Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment by the High Court of Delhi, the Court emphasized the crucial importance of establishing a “legally enforceable debt” in cases involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The headline quote from the Court’s observation on this matter is as follows:

“The complainant is duty-bound to show and establish the basic ingredients therein, without which, the very complaint is bound to crumble and fall as the very essence of such a complaint is lost.”

In this case, the petitioner, who was the complainant, sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the Trial Court. The respondent had been accused of dishonoring a cheque. However, the Court found that the complainant had failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt owed by the respondent. The Court also noted material contradictions in the complainant’s testimony and the lack of evidence regarding the breakup of the cheque amount.

The Court further stated that it was the complainant’s responsibility to provide clear evidence linking the cheque amount, the relationship with the respondent, and the surrounding circumstances to prove the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court ultimately upheld the acquittal, finding no new grounds for interference and deeming the Trial Court’s order as plausible.

This judgment serves as a reminder that in cheque bounce cases, complainants must meticulously establish the elements required by the law, including the existence of a legally enforceable debt, to successfully prosecute their case.

Date of Decision: January 05, 2024

BHAGWATI DEVI VS SH. BALRAJ SINGH CHOPRA

 

Similar News