Cheque Bounce Case Lawyer

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

The Delhi High Court has held that complaint in a Cheque Bounce Case can be filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of service of demand notice. The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an order passed by the Trial Magistrate, whereby the Petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The single judge bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia held, "So far as the complaint being premature, the argument is completely devoid of merit. The period of 45 days under reference is not a lump sum consolidated period; it is 15 days (after service of statutory notice, to pay vide proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act) plus 30 days (to file complaint under Section 141(1)(b) of the Act). The period of 30 days or 31 days (the provision uses the expression “one month”) is akin to the limitation period after arising of cause of action. The cause of action arises if by 15th day of service of the statutory notice, the cheque amount is not paid by the drawer."

Facts of the Case Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed premature since according to the statute, the Complaint has to be filed after 45 days of the statutory notice. It was also argued that the cheques in question do not bear signatures of the Petitioner. Further, it was contended that since the Respondent filed Civil Suit for recovery of the outstanding amount pertaining to same transaction for which the subject cheques were issued, the complaint case is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

Reasoning By Court The Court at the outset noted that it is trite that where both, a civil remedy as well as a criminal remedy for any transaction are available, the aggrieved person can avail both the remedies. "What has been filed by the present respondent through civil suit is a civil remedy pertaining to civil liability of the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount. The complaint case filed by the present respondent pertains to criminal liability where despite being served with a statutory notice after dishonour of cheque, the petitioner/accused opted not to pay. The goal of the civil suit is the decree of the suit amount while the goal of the criminal proceedings is imposition of punishment, which can be imprisonment as well. There is no bar on the respondent proceeding with both remedies simultaneously", the Court observed.

Holding that complaint in a Cheque Bounce Case can be filed after drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of service of notice by the payee making the demand, the Court observed, "....the statutory notice, which was issued in time, was served on the petitioner/accused on 22.09.2022. That being so, the time to make payment of the cheque amount expired on 07.10.2022 and the complaint case could be filed by 06.11.2022. As submitted by learned counsel, the complaint case was filed on 29.10.2022, that is within the prescribed period of limitation to file such complaint." With respect to the argument of signatures on the cheques, the Court ruled that both the cheques clearly bear in print, name of the Petitioner as drawer/signatory of the cheques.

Whether or not those signatures under name of the present petitioner/accused are genuine is a matter of trial. It is trite that the High Court while adjudicating upon a petition under Section 528 BNSS shall not carry out a mini trial", the Court observed. The Petition was accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- as not just devoid of merit but completely frivolous. Cause Title: Smt. Rama Oberoi vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2025:DHC:7683).

Cheque Bounce Case Lawyer

Best Criminal Case Lawyer

Best lawyer for Bail

Best divorce lawyer

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Top divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Maintenance case lawyer in karkarkardooma Court delhi

Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Transfer petition case lawyer

NRI mutual consent divorce case lawyer

Matrimonial dispute case lawyer

Lawyer for interim maintenance case in karkarkardooma Court delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in East delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Best Divorce lawyer

Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in East delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in new delhi

Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi

Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court

Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi

Mutual consent divorce lawyer

Best mutual divorce lawyer

Maintenance case lawyer

Domestic violence case lawyer

Contested divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Adultery divorce case lawyer in Delhi India

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Case Details:- Bronson Barthol Dias v. Central Adoption Resource Authority, Writ Petition No. 3506 of 2025, decided on 7-4-2025 Bombay High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioners having two biological children suffering from disabilities, wanted to adopt a third normal child, but their application was rejected, the Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, JJ. opined that in complex and emotional mindset, the parents of the children with disabilities naturally would have an intense dedication, desire, and happiness to receive a normal child in adoption to balance their life and to have an experience to raise a normal child, which they were missing. The Court opined that it could never be the intention of the statutory mandate that a couple which already had disabled children could be barred from adopting a normal child. The Court thus directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners’ application in accordance with law and by applying the power of relaxation under R...

Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Search This Blog