Right Of Private Defence Not Available To Aggressors Who Create Situations Of Peril: Allahabad High Court National Security Concerns Outweigh Right To Bail In Espionage Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Relief To Navy Sailor Accused Of Spying For Pakistan Wives Are Not Deemed Maids, Marriage Is A Partnership Of Equals: Bombay High Court Rejects Household Chores As Ground For Cruelty Divorce Economic Offences Affect Financial Fabric Of Society; Custodial Interrogation May Be Necessary: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Anil Tuteja's Bail In Mahadev App Case Municipalities Are 'Persons' Under WB Highways Act; Can't Build On PWD Land Without Permission: Calcutta High Court Sale Of Secured Asset At Reserve Price Requires Borrower’s Consent; Authorised Officer Cannot Confirm Sale Unilaterally: Andhra Pradesh High Court Procedural Safeguards Mandatory Even In National Security Cases: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Over Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Compassionate Appointment Not A Ladder For Career Growth; Second Claim For Higher Post Not Permissible: Allahabad High Court High Court Can't Invoke Inherent Powers To Allow 'Backdoor Entry' For Second Revision Unless Gross Injustice Is Established: Delhi High Court Court Cannot Presume Unsound Mind Merely Because Of Hearing & Speech Disability; Inquiry Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act: Technical Omission In Complaint Filed By POA Holder Cured If Original Complainant Testifies During Trial; Kerala High Court Direct Evidence Of Sexual Intercourse Not Always Possible; Circumstantial Evidence Of Proximity Sufficient To Prove Adultery: Madras High Court 21 Years Service Is Not Temporary: Orissa HC Directs Regularization Of Drivers, Says State Can’t Exploit Workers Through Perennial 'Ad-Hocism' Reinstatement Not Automatic For Section 25-F ID Act Violations; Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹1 Lakh Per Year Compensation To Superannuated Workman Section 82 CrPC Requirements Mandatory; Order Declaring Person Proclaimed Vitiated If Fresh Proclamation Not Issued Upon Adjournment: Punjab & Haryana HC Stay On Blacklisting Order Does Not Efface Underlying Fact; Bidder Must Make Candid Disclosure: Delhi 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