Latest Supreme Court Judgement on Cheque Bounce Case 138 NI

By /

Latest Supreme Court Judgements on Cheque Bounce Cases | How to Win or Get Discharged Under Section 138 NI Act

 

1. Introduction to Section 138 of the NI Act

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, criminalizes the dishonour of a cheque due to insufficient funds or if it exceeds the account balance. It’s one of the most frequently litigated provisions in India’s criminal courts. Latest Supreme Court Judgement on Cheque Bounce Case 138 NI.

Purpose: To ensure credibility in commercial transactions using cheques.

2. What Constitutes a Cheque Bounce Case

For a valid cheque bounce case under Section 138 NI Act, the following must be proved:

  • Cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt.

  • Cheque returned unpaid due to “insufficient funds” or “exceeds arrangement.”

  • A demand notice is sent within 30 days of dishonour.

  • Drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receipt of notice.

3. The Legal Process in Cheque Bounce Cases

  • Stage 1: Filing of complaint after notice period lapses.

  • Stage 2: Cognizance and issuance of summons by Magistrate.

  • Stage 3: Accused appears and trial begins.

  • Stage 4: Evidence by complainant and defence.

  • Stage 5: Final arguments and judgment.

The process is summary in nature but often prolonged due to pendency.

Latest Supreme Court Judgement on Cheque Bounce Case 138 NI.

4. Latest Supreme Court Judgement on Cheque Bounce Case (2024-2025)

📌 Case: Rajesh Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (2025)

Facts: Accused was facing 4 parallel cheque bounce cases. Sought consolidation and dismissal citing procedural lapses.

Judgement Highlights:

  • Supreme Court held that multiple cheque cases arising from same transaction can be clubbed.

  • Reinforced that “intention to repay” can be considered during trial.

  • Repeated adjournments by complainant can be a valid ground for discharge.

🧠 Takeaway: Procedural lapses and delay by complainant can benefit the accused.

5. Landmark Judgement on Discharge of Accused in 138 NI Act by SC

📌 Case: M/s Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018)

Key Points:

  • The Supreme Court allowed compounding at any stage.

  • Accused can be discharged if parties settle even before framing of notice.

✅ Legal Tip: Apply for discharge based on Section 258 CrPC (stoppage of proceedings).

6. 138 NI Act Latest Judgements in Favour of Accused

  • Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014): Case must be filed where the drawee bank is located.

  • M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation (2014): Advance payment cheques not enforceable unless obligation exists.

These judgements are frequently used to challenge jurisdiction or liability.

7. Chances of Winning a Cheque Bounce Case

Chances increase significantly if:

  • No legal liability is proved.

  • Defence presents solid documentation (emails, receipts, bank statements).

  • Complainant delays filing notice or complaint.

  • Settlement is achieved early in the process.

🔍 Stat Tip: Over 30% of cheque bounce complaints are disposed in favour of accused due to technical lapses.

8. How to Escape from a Cheque Bounce Case

💡 Legal Strategies to Avoid Conviction:

  1. Challenge Maintainability:

    • Jurisdiction issues.

    • Cheque given as security or blank.

  2. Highlight Procedural Errors:

    • Delay in notice.

    • Incomplete or defective notice.

  3. Prove No Liability:

    • Loan already repaid.

    • Cheque misused or stolen.

  4. File Discharge Application Early:

    • Use Supreme Court rulings supporting early discharge or compounding.

9. Cheque Bounce Case Judgement Time in India

Although law mandates a 6-month completion, in reality:

  • Metro cities: 1–2 years

  • District courts: 2–4 years

⚖️ Fast-track courts & digital evidence are speeding up trials, but case pendency is still a concern.

10. Defence Evidence in 138 NI Act Format (Sample Templates)

 

📄 Sample: Written Statement (Accused)

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

1. That the accused did not issue the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

2. The cheque was issued as a security.

3. There is no document evidencing any loan or transaction.

(Attach supporting documents)

(Signature)

📄 Sample: Affidavit by Accused


I, Mr. XYZ, do hereby solemnly affirm:
- That the cheque was misused.
- That no notice under Section 138 was received in time.
- That the alleged transaction is baseless.

(Signature & Date)

11. Practical Legal Strategies & Defences for Accused

Defence Strategy Description
No Debt No enforceable liability existed.
Security Cheque Cheque given as security, not payment.
Misuse/Theft Cheque used without consent.
Improper Notice Demand notice not served or late.
Post-dated Cheque Future dated cheque misused.

🧠 Pro Tip: Always preserve bank statements and communication history with the complainant.

⚖️ Common Grounds for Discharge Under Section 138 NI Act

1. ❌ No Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability

If the cheque was not issued towards an enforceable liability (e.g., it was a gift, security, or advance), no case under Section 138 can be sustained.

Landmark Case: Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
➤ Held: Advance cheques for future contracts are not enforceable if the contract is cancelled.

2. 📅 Defective or Delayed Legal Notice

  • Notice not served within 30 days of bounce.

  • Demand not made properly.

  • Accused proves non-receipt or vague wording in the notice.

3. 📍 Jurisdictional Error

As per Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014), the complaint must be filed where the drawee bank is located.

4. ✋ Cheque Given as Security

A cheque issued merely as security for a loan or transaction, not for repayment, does not attract Section 138.

Relevant Case: Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
➤ Security cheques do not attract criminal liability unless there’s a subsisting debt.

5. 🔐 Forgery, Theft, or Misuse

  • Cheque was stolen or misused.

  • Signature was forged.

  • Accused proves lack of consent in issuance.

🛡️ Top Legal Defenses to Win 138 NI Act Cases

Defense Strategy Explanation
No Liability No debt or obligation existed when cheque was issued.
Cheque as Security Cheque was given as a mere assurance, not for actual debt.
Improper Notice Demand notice was not served correctly or on time.
Post-dated Cheque Cheque was issued post-dated and not for current dues.
Forged Signature Disputed signature or cheque manipulation by complainant.
Account Closed Long Ago Cheque issued when account was not in operation or dormant.
No Delivery Cheque never handed over to the complainant.
Jurisdictional Challenge Case filed in wrong court – not where drawee bank is located.

🧠 How to Get Discharged Before Trial?

The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) allows for discharge under:

  • Section 258 CrPC – For warrant cases (Non-compoundable)

  • Section 245(2) CrPC – When no prima facie case is made

  • Compounding at any stage – Even after conviction

Case Law: Meters & Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018)
➤ Held: Offence under Section 138 is compoundable, and courts can discharge even suo motu if settlement is reached.

✍️ Sample Discharge Application Format (Brief)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MAGISTRATE COURT

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 245(2) CrPC FOR DISCHARGE

The accused respectfully submits:

1. That no legally enforceable debt existed.
2. That the cheque was issued as a security.
3. That the complainant has failed to meet the ingredients of Section 138 NI Act.
It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may kindly be discharged.
(Accused Signature)

📑 Sample Affidavit of Accused (Defence)

I, Mr. ABC, do hereby solemnly affirm:
1. That the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt.
2. That the complainant has filed this case maliciously.
3. That no notice was received within the statutory period.
(Deponent)

🏛️ Landmark Supreme Court Judgements You Can Use

Case Name Relevance
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (2014) Jurisdiction lies where drawer bank is.
Meters & Instruments v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) Early discharge & compounding allowed.
Indus Airways v. Magnum Aviation (2014) No offence if cheque was for advance.
Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012) Explained “legally enforceable debt”
Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya (2008) Presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable.

📈 Practical Tips to Win or Close the Case Early

  1. 🔍 Collect Proof: Gather documents like loan receipts, WhatsApp messages, emails, bank statements.

  2. 📜 File RTI to Bank: To get cheque dishonour details and account summary.

  3. 🧾 Preserve All Legal Notices: Check for defects in the demand notice.

  4. ⚖️ File for Discharge Early: Move application before evidence begins.

  5. 📝 Consider Compounding: If liability is partial, offer out-of-court settlement and close the case.

  6. 👨‍⚖️ Hire an Expert Criminal Lawyer: Specialized experience in NI Act trials can make a huge difference.

🕒 How Long Does It Take to Win or Close a 138 NI Case?

Though law mandates disposal within 6 months, actual durations vary:

Location Typical Time for Judgement
Tier 1 Cities 6–12 months
Tier 2 Cities 1–2 years
Rural Areas 2–3 years

Fast-track Courts and online proceedings (via VC) are helping reduce delays.

🔚 Conclusion

While cheque bounce under Section 138 NI Act is a serious bailable offence, it is not undefeatable. Armed with the right legal knowledge, proper documentation, and case law, one can either win or get discharged during trial or even pre-trial stage.

Many accused have successfully leveraged jurisdictional issues, lack of enforceable debt, and procedural defects to beat these cases. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly favored early disposal, compounding, and settlement.

So if you’re facing a cheque bounce case — remember: your legal defense is your best cheque!

12. FAQs on Cheque Bounce Cases in India

Q1. Can an accused be jailed for cheque bounce?
Yes, up to 2 years imprisonment, but jail is usually avoided if fine is paid or matter is settled.

Q2. Is there any way to close a case early?
Yes, through compounding or early settlement under the guidance of the court.

Q3. Can I fight the case without a lawyer?
Legally yes, but advisable to appoint a criminal lawyer experienced in 138 NI Act cases.

Q4. Can the court attach property for cheque bounce?
Only after conviction and failure to pay compensation. Not during trial stage.

13. Sources and Judgements Referred

 

  1. Rajesh Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, SC, 2025

  2. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560

  3. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129

  4. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 12 SCC 539

  5. NI Act, 1881 – Bare Act

  6. Supreme Court of India Judgement Portal: https://main.sci.gov.in

  7. Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org

  8. LiveLaw & Bar & Bench Legal News Portals

  9. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Bare Act

  10. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)

  11. Rajesh Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, SC 2025

  12. Meters & Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560

  13. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129

  14. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 12 SCC 539

  15. Supreme Court of India: https://main.sci.gov.in

  16. Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top