Second 482 Petition Maintainable On Changed Circumstances: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Aptech VP In Jal Nigam Recruitment Case Police Have No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Civil Disputes Between Parties, Must Adhere To Statutory Limits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Consent Decree Based On Compromise Signed By Constituted Attorney And Counsel Is Binding Even After 30 Years: Bombay High Court Changing Service Conditions Mid-Bond For Senior Residents Doctors Is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Quashes Retroactive Application Of New SOP Succession Certificate Under Indian Succession Act Cannot Determine Entitlement To Family Pension And Retiral Benefits: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected For Failure To Value Reliefs Separately And Pay Ad-Valorem Court Fees: Delhi High Court NDPS Act | Non-Compliance With Mandatory Provisions Of Sections 42, 50 And 57 Vitiates Search And Seizure, Warrants Acquittal: Gujarat High Court FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely On Complainant’s Consent; Court Must Independently Scrutinize If Ingredients Of Offence Are Made Out: Calcutta High Court Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act | Permanent Alimony Must Be Based On Husband’s Financial Capacity And Wife’s Reasonable Comfort: Jharkhand High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Direct Registration Of FIR Or Constitute SIT When Statutory Remedies Under CrPC Are Available: Delhi High Court Child Cannot Be Used As A Pawn To Prove Adultery Between Parents: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea To Examine Minor As Witness Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Give Criminal Colour To Administrative Disputes By Directing FIR Registration Without Compliance With Priyanka Srivastava: High Court Contempt Of Court Act | Burden To Prove 'Willful Disobedience' Lies Upon Complainant; Merely Alleging Non-Compliance Is Insufficient: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Dismiss Matrimonial Petition Merely For Lack Of 'Elaborate' Evidence In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Kerala High Court Election Petition Under Section 100 RP Act Must Be Supported By Mandatory Affidavit In Form 94A For Corrupt Practice Allegations: Madras High Court Water Act | Supreme Court Directive Overrides Previous Quashing Orders; Magistrate Can Proceed Against Municipal Officials For Unchecked Sewage Discharge: Karnataka High Court A&C Act | Arbitrator’s Decision On Jurisdiction Treated As A Preliminary Issue Amounts To An 'Interim Award' Amenable To Challenge Under Section 34: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act | No Requirement To Hear Accused At Pre-Cognizance Stage Under Section 223 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 94 BNSS | Financial Institutions Entitled To Retain Custody Of Pledged Gold Provided Undertaking Is Filed Before Trial Court: Telangana High Court Family Courts Act | Section 14 Overrides Section 92 Indian Evidence Act To Admit Oral Evidence For Proving Real Source Of Funds: Kerala High Court

Liability in Cheque Bounce Cases – Drawer Alone Liable: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court delivered a judgment on December 6, 2023, that has clarified the liability of individuals in cases of dishonored cheques. The court emphasized that only the drawer of a dishonored cheque can be held criminally liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The judgment came in response to a petition filed by Arushi Gupta seeking the quashing of Complaint Case No. 4061/2020, which was based on a dishonored cheque allegedly issued by her. The court examined the legal provisions and relevant case law to arrive at its conclusion.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, stated in the judgment, “If the cheque in question is returned unpaid on account of the conditions mentioned under Section 138 of the Act, such person alone is liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.”

The court’s decision reaffirmed the principle that the liability for a dishonored cheque falls squarely on the drawer of the cheque. The judgment also highlighted that even in cases of joint liability, individuals other than the drawer cannot be prosecuted unless they are signatories to the cheque and have drawn it on their account.                                                  

Date of Decision: December 6, 2023

ARUSHI GUPTA VS AJAY CHANANA

Latest Legal News