Claims For Recovery Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Supported By Probable Evidence; Exaggerated Claims Unsafe: Kerala High Court Naib Tahsildar Performing Quasi-Judicial Duties Is A 'Judge', Protected From Disciplinary Action For Bonafide Errors: Madhya Pradesh High Court Purchaser Estopped From Refusing Delivery Or Payment Of Statutory Taxes After Participating In Machinery Trial Runs: Madras High Court Presumption Of Marriage From Aadhaar, Passports Is Rebuttable; Long Silence Dislodges Marital Claim: Kerala High Court Government Cannot Deny Promotional Benefits To Employee Who Assumes Charge On The Date Of Superannuation: Karnataka High Court Disproportionate Assets 608% More Than Salary Establish 'Proceeds Of Crime' Prima Facie; No Mini-Trial At Discharge Stage: Jharkhand High Court Decree Based On 'Evasive Denial' Improper If Defendant Raises Specific Defenses Going To Root Of Case: J&K & Ladakh High Court Trial Courts Cannot Adjourn Ad-Interim Injunction Petitions For Months While Ordering 'Urgent Notice': Andhra Pradesh High Court Agent Of Court Receiver Who Breaches Undertaking On Nature Of Business Not Entitled To Occupy Premises Without Paying Royalty: Bombay High Court Criminal Antecedents Of A Witness Do Not Operate As Disqualification, Testimony To Be Assessed With Caution Not Suspicion: Calcutta High Court Bar On Raising Benami Defense Under Section 4 Applies To All Suits Filed After 1988 Act, Even For Past Transactions: Allahabad High Court Article 21 Can Trump UAPA Bail Restrictions In Cases Of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Activist Khuram Parvez Mere Possession Of Jihad Literature Not An Offence; Cannot Be Tagged With Terrorism Without Evidence Of Criminal Act: Telangana 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