***

Interest on loan repayment – 138 NI Act -- Addition of interest to principal amount does not negate the cheques’ character as repayment of loan, particularly where the accused admitted signing the cheques and failed to stop their payment, while closure of bank accounts soon after issuance raised serious questions about his conduct – Conviction upheld.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Principal amount – Interest thereupon – Repayment of loan – Ground of -- If the rate of interest of 3% instead of 1.8% per month has been added on the principal amount and the amount in the cheques reflects the same, it cannot be said that the cheques were not for repayment of the principal amount -- When the respondent/ accused does not dispute that he has handed over the cheques or signed on them, it was incumbent upon him, the moment he claims the amount(s) were repaid to the appellant/ complainant to have either taken back the cheques or instructed the bank concerned to not honour the concerned cheques -- Closure of the bank accounts within a few weeks of issuance of the cheque raises serious questions about the conduct and intent of the respondent/ accused – Conviction  by trial court, upheld.

(Para 16)

***

Interim compensation – 138, 141, 143A NI Act -- Company cheque – Section 143A fastens liability on the drawer of the cheque and cannot be broadened to include authorised signatories or directors beyond the statutory text.

***

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 7, 138, 141, 143A -- Drawer – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation u/s 143A of NI Act -- Liability of Directors of Company -- Interpretation of -- High Court's interpretation accurately identified the "drawer" as the individual who issues the cheque -- Drawer u/s 143A refers specifically to the issuer of the cheque, not the authorized signatories -- Primary liability rests on the drawer, emphasizing the drawer's responsibility for maintaining sufficient funds -- Section 141 of the NI Act extending liability to the company's officers for the dishonour of a cheque -- Appellants' attempt to extend this principle to Section 143A, to hold directors or other individuals personally liable for interim compensation, is unfounded -- Authorized signatories act on behalf of the company but do not assume the company's legal identity.

(Para 28-30)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 7, 138, 143A -- Drawer – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation u/s 143A of NI Act -- Liability of Directors of Company – Interpretation of -- When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be given its natural and ordinary meaning -- Legislative intent, as discerned from the plain language of the statute, aims to hold the drawer accountable -- Appellants' argument for a broader interpretation to include authorized signatories u/s 143A contradicts this principle and would lead to an unjust extension of liability not supported by the statutory text.

(Para 31)

***

Proclaimed person – Cheque bounce complaint – Settlement and withdrawal of complaint – FIR under Section 174-A IPC and all consequential proceedings quashed.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Withdrawal of complaint -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings u/s 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act read with Section 420 IPC have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the aforesaid complaint -- Petition allowed subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/- as costs -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Para 12, 13)

***

Handwriting expert – 138 NI Act -- Where accused does not dispute signatures, heavy burden lies on him to explain how cheque came into complainant’s possession; mere difference in handwriting on cheque does not constitute a defence – Application rightly rejected.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Examination of Handwriting expert – Application for -- Holder in due course -- Burdon of proof -- A burden lies heavy on the person issuing the cheque particularly the accused who does not dispute the authenticity of the signatures to furnish a justifiable explanation as to how such cheque came into the hands of the complainant -- Mere fact that body writing on the cheque in question has not been made by the accused would not offer any kind of defence to the accused – Trial court declined application --  No infirmity in the impugned order,  and the same is upheld.

(Para 1, 11, 12)

***

Recall/examination of witness – Section 311 CrPC – Scope – Power is intended to discover the truth and ensure a just decision by obtaining relevant evidence; must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, and an application cannot be rejected merely because the case has been pending for a long time.

***

Re-examination of complainant – 138 NI Act -- Subsequent challan in FIR arising from same transaction disclosed new facts having bearing on case; complainant permitted to be re-examined/cross-examined on such facts under Section 311 CrPC, subject to ?5,000 costs.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Scope and object of the Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts to arrive at a just decision of the case -- Power is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily -- Such a power is to be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be adduced by the concerned witness is relevant to the issue involved -- Application could not be rejected on the sole ground that the case has been pending since long.

(Para 5)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Re-examination of complainant/ witness – FIR by complainant for same transaction as well -- Complainant’s cross-examination was completed on 21.11.2019 -- However, challan in criminal case was filed in year 2022 – It is the case of the petitioner that certain new facts having bearing on the present case, surfaced in the said report submitted by the police u/s 173 Cr.P.C and it is necessary to put the said new facts to the complainant in his cross examination -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-.

(Para 3, 6, 7)

***

Suspension of sentence – Appeal – Deposit of 20% compensation – Appellate Court must consider whether the case falls within an exceptional category warranting waiver or reduction of the statutory deposit before imposing the condition; order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148A -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit 20% of compensation amount -- Appellate Court was required to consider whether the case falls under exception or not – Impugned order set aside, Ld. Appellate Court directed to pass the order afresh, after granting opportunity to the parties with regard to, whether the petitioner is able to make out a ground that his case falls under exceptional category which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount or whether the petitioner is liable to pay less amount of compensation.

(Para 6-8)

***

Compounding – 138 NI Act -- Where the parties subsequently settled the matter, conviction and sentence were quashed and the accused acquitted, subject to deposit of 10% of the cheque amount with HPSLSA.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise thereafter – Quashing of conviction/ sentence – Trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant – Appellate court affirmed the same -- Matter ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence quashed and set aside -- Petitioner-accused acquitted subject to deposit of 10% of the Cheque amount with the HPSLSA.

(Para 1, 8, 9)

***

Compounding – 138, 147 NI Act -- Offence can be compounded even after conviction by the courts below, where the complainant has received/agreed to receive the entire compensation and has no objection; conviction and sentence quashed and accused acquitted.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise – Acquittal --  Entire amount of compensation agreed to be paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence -- No impediment in accepting the prayer for compounding of offence while exercising power u/s 147 of the Act even after recording of conviction by the courts below – Matter compounded, impugned judgments of conviction and sentence quashed and set aside. Damodar S. Prabhu’s case (2010) 5 SCC 663 = (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15231 relied.

(Para 9-10)

***

Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 – Rebuttal – Where witness identified the accused’s signatures and she failed to seek their comparison by a handwriting/fingerprint expert, presumption of legally enforceable liability remained unrebutted; cheque held to have been issued in discharge of liability.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption – Rebuttal of presumption -- Witness very categorically stated that the documents had been executed by the petitioner and identified the signatures of the petitioner on the documents – Petitioner was at liberty to get her signatures compared through some handwriting & finger print expert, however, she did not do so – Held, cheque has been issued by the petitioner in discharge of her legal liability and she has failed to rebut the presumption as exists as per Section 118 read with Section 139 of the N.I. Act – Revision against conviction dismissed.

(Para 1, 16-18)

***

Acquittal – Alleged cash loan of Rs.5 lakh unsupported by documentary evidence, with no specific dates of loan or cheque issuance and concealment of material facts undermining the complainant’s credibility; acquittal upheld.

***

Presumption of legally enforceable liability – 138, 139 NI Act -- Alleged cash loan of Rs.5 lakh was advanced, the complainant bore a heavy burden to establish the underlying transaction before the statutory presumption could operate.

***

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal -- Huge amount of Rs.5 lacs was allegedly given to the respondent-accused in cash -- Complainant failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of the advancement of loan, raising doubts about the credibility of the said transaction – Absence of specific dates regarding the loan advancement and issuance of cheque further weakens the case of the complainant -- Concealment of facts by the complainant including his involvement in a case of fraud and also depositing money into unrelated party’s accounts further undermines the credibility of the case brought-forth by the complainant against the respondent-accused – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 5-8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption for legally enforceable liability -- Huge amount of Rs.5 lacs was allegedly given to the respondent-accused in cash -- In order to draw presumption u/s 118 read with Section 139 of the Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to prove his case against the accused.

(Para 7)

***

Bank account statement of complainant – 138 NI Act -- Court can exercise power under S. 91 CrPC suo motu or on application of either party -- Matter remanded for fresh consideration.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Cheque bounce complaint – Production of Bank Account statement of complainant from Bank – Locus standi of accused -- Trial Court dismissed the application by observing that power to summon any document on file is vested with the Court or the Officer In-charge of the Police Station and thus, the application moved at the instance of petitioner-accused could not be entertained -- Held, power u/s 91 of CrPC can be exercised either by the Court on its own or even on an application moved by either of the parties to the trial – Impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to trial court to adjudicate afresh.

(Para 3-6)

***

Interim compensation – 138, 143A NI Act -- Trial Court awarded maximum 20% of cheque amount under Section 143-A treating the provision as mandatory -- Held, Section 143-A is not mandatory and exercise of power must be in accordance with principles laid down by Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava’s 2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19277 -- Impugned order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Trial Court passed the impugned order and awarded maximum of the permissible compensation of 20% of the cheque amount by invoking provisions of Section 143-A under the impression that the said provision is mandatory in nature -- Impugned order set aside, direction given to learned trial Court to decide the matter afresh in consonance with the provision of Section 143-A NI Act as is explained and clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2024(2) RCR(Crl.) 279 =  2024 INSC 205 = (2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19277.

(Para 6, 7)

***

Additional evidence -- Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide power, to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons with great caution.

***

Screenshots of mobile phone – 138 NI Act -- Copies of screenshots admissible subject to production of requisite Section 65-B Evidence Act certificate.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Additional evidence -- Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide power, the said power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons with great caution and circumspection.

(Para 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65, 65B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311  -- Screen shots of mobile – Secondary evidence -- Copies of the  screen shots being secondary evidence is admissible in evidence subject to requirement of certificate as per provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act -- Electronic documents ordered to be admitted in evidence subject to provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act with liberty to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant -- Evidentiary value and relevancy of the said electronic documents will be adjudicated by the learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of the case.

(Para 9)

***

Transfer of case – 138 NI Act -- Agreement executed at Pune; accused resident of Pune; dishonoured cheques drawn on Pune bank; jurisdiction clause conferred jurisdiction on Court where bank provided loan facility -- Cheques presented at Calcutta branch -- Entire cause of action arose at Pune -- Complaints transferred from Calcutta to Pune.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Cheque bounce complaint – Transfer of case -- Agreement executed at Pune, petitioner/accused is resident of Pune -- Cheques which were dishonoured are also issued on Bank at Pune -- In the agreement, the jurisdictional clause provide that the Court where the bank has provided loan facility will have a jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the parties -- Cheque was presented in the respondent’s Branch at Calcutta – Entire cause of action has arisen at Pune and only in order to harass the petitioner the complaints have been filed at Calcutta by manipulating the jurisdiction – Complaint transferred from Calcutta to Pune.

(Para 6-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 -- Acquittal/ Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution -- Power of the Magistrate u/s 256 Cr.P.C to acquit an accused should be exercised judicially, based on a definite conclusion that the complainant no longer desires to prosecute the complaint -- Judicious course would be to direct the complainant to appear for the hearing, if it is imperative, and decide whether the drastic step of acquittal is to be passed in case he fails to appear.

(Para 15)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256, 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Absence of complainant -- Dismissed for want of  prosecution -- Neither the complainant was present for trial nor any order directing complainant to remain present was passed on the earlier occasion – Ld. Magistrate ought to have adjourned the complaint to a later date directing the complainant to positively remain present on the next date -- Held, learned Magistrate was not justified in straight away dismissing the complaint and ordering acquittal of the accused respondents on mere non-appearance of the complainant -- Impugned order quashed and set aside -- Proceedings restored to its original number.

(Para 18-20)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit  20% of compensation -- Petitioner directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court, while passing the said direction, the Appellate Court has not referred to the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509 and no reason given by the said Court – Condition of deposit set aside, Appellate Court directed to decide afresh.

(Para 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Cheque bounce complaint / FIR -- Compounding of offence – No consent of complainant – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Initially, both sides agreed to compound at the appellate stage but the appellant could not pay the amount within the time – Now appellant has paid the entire amount with interest – Appellant in jail for more than 1 year before being released on bail – Now no purpose to keep the proceedings pending – Transaction between the parties was purely civil in nature which does not attract criminal law -- Even though complainant is unwilling to compound, proceedings must come to an end – While exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, criminal proceedings in FIR and criminal appeals against conviction u/s 138 of the NI Act quashed and sentence awarded by the trial court set aside.

(Para 13-15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bonce case – Quashing of complaint -- Though the prayer for quashing was made only as regards first and second respondents, by the impugned judgment, the complaint has been quashed in its entirety – Held, there was no reason for the High Court to quash the complaint in its entirety -- Impugned order modified.

 (Para 3-5)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption as to liability – Rebuttal – Standard of proof -- Once execution of the cheque is proved/ admitted, the presumptions u/s 118(a) and 139 of the said Act would arise that it is supported by a consideration -- Such presumptions are rebuttable in nature and the accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence, and if the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument -- Standard of proof so as to prove defence on the part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilities' and inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Void cheque – Alteration in cheque -- Amount written in cheque corrected in figures or in number without the knowledge and consent of maker of the cheque amounts to material alteration and also amounts cancellation -- The figure “2" was specifically inserted in cheque specifically without the knowledge of the drawer is a material alteration which makes the documents void -- Accused is not liable for any type of legal recoverable debt -- Nothing is on file to prove any type of transaction or debt to held the accused liable – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 8-10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Receipt issued on the letter pad of the shop of accused is also not proved the liability of the accused in any manner as no witness regarding the receipt is on the letter pad and without any witness the document did not prove any type of liability towards the accused.

(Para 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Proprietorship Firm not impleaded as party – Neither it is the case of the petitioner/ accused that the amount in question had been advanced as loan to the firm nor the cross-examination of the complainant suggest any such stand of the petitioner -- Firm in question is a sole proprietorship firm of the petitioner/ accused and, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner would not be responsible for the affairs of the said firm – Guilt of the petitioner/ accused upheld.

(Para 9)

A. “May” – “Shall” – Interpretation -- Word “may” ordinarily does not mean “must” -- Ordinarily, “may” will not be construed as “shall” -- But this is not an inflexible rule -- The use of the word “may” in certain legislations can be construed as “shall”, and the word “shall” can be construed as “may” -- It all depends on the nature of the power conferred by the relevant provision of the statute and the effect of the exercise of the power -- The legislative intent also plays a role in the interpretation of such provisions. Even the context in which the word “may” has been used is also relevant.

(Para 9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 143A will apply only when the case is being tried as a warrant case -- In the case of a summary or summons trial, the power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A can be exercised after the plea of the accused is recorded.

(Para 10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 421 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Recovery of -- By a legal fiction, the interim compensation is treated as a fine for the purposes of its recovery -- Section 421 of the Cr.PC deals with the recovery of the fine imposed by a criminal court while passing the sentence -- Thus, recourse can be taken to Section 421 of the Cr.PC. for recovery of interim compensation -- Interim compensation amount can be recovered treating it as fine -- Interim compensation amount can be recovered by the Trial Court by issuing a warrant for attachment and sale of the movable property of the accused -- If acquitted, he may get back the money along with the interest as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 143A from the complainant.

(Para 11, 12)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A(5) – Cheque bounce complaint – Non-payment of interim compensation – Right to defend -- Non-payment of interim compensation by the accused does not take away his right to defend the prosecution.

(Para 12)

E. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Power of Trial Court – It can be exercised even before the accused is held guilty -- Sub-section (1) of Section 143A provides for passing a drastic order for payment of interim compensation against the accused in a complaint u/s 138, even before any adjudication is made on the guilt of the accused.

(Para 14)

F. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Word “may” used in Section 143A, cannot be construed or interpreted as “shall”. Therefore, the power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary.

(Para 14)

G. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A, 148 – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation -- Tests applicable for the exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 148 can never apply to the exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 143A of the N.I. Act.

(Para 15)

H. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A, 148 – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Financial distress -- Factors to be considered while exercising discretion -- When the court deals with an application u/s 143A of the N.I. Act, the Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application under sub-section (1) of Section 143A -- Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the payment of interim compensation -- At this stage, the fact that the accused is in financial distress can also be a consideration –  Court will have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted – Court will have to consider various factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant and the paying capacity of the accused -- If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie a plausible defence, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation -- Factors set out are not exhaustive -- There could be several other factors, such as, the pendency of a civil suit, etc. -- While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all the relevant factors.

(Para 16)

I. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143A, 148 – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Law summarised:

a. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word “may” used in the provision cannot be construed as “shall.”

b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors.

c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows:

i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration.

ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.

iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc.

v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive.

(Para 19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (3 of 1938), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal – Money Lender’s license – Respondent/ accused is under no legally enforceable debt as the complainant-company has been advancing loans illegally -- It is imperative to possess a money lending licence as per the Money Lender’s Act -- Section 3 of the said Act provides that the suit or application for recovery of the loan shall be dismissed if the person claiming recovery does not hold a valid licence under the Act -- Thus, the debt becomes an unenforceable debt – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 3-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of cheque bounce complaint -- Several complaint cases u/s 138 of the N.I. Act are pending in the Court at Gurugram, Haryana and it is a solitary case which was instituted in the Court at Dwarka – Parties to the proceedings are residents of Gurugram and the witnesses are also hailing from Gurugram – Complaint transferred from Dwarka Court, New Delhi to the Court of the Gurugram, Haryana.

(Para 3-6)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Handwriting expert -- Defence set up by the petitioner/ accused is that the cheque in question had been issued not for the purpose of returning any loan, but for the purpose of making a donation to a Saint -- Mere fact that the body writing on the cheque in question is not of the accused or of the complainant and is in the hand of some 3rd person, would not have any bearing either on the case of the complainant or on the defence plea being set up by the accused – Application for examining Handwriting expert dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Handwriting expert -- Accused would be required to prima facie show that the witness sought to be examined does have a relevance with the defence plea sought to be substantiated by the accused or has a potential to demolish the case of the complainant.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of complaint – Basic ingredients – Requirement of -- Submission that complaint does not contain date of presentation of cheque before the bank, the date of return of the cheque as unpaid from the bank, the date of issuing mandatory notice within 30 days and the date of service of such notice on the drawee – Held, complaint cannot proceed u/s 138 of the N.I. Act without the basic ingredients being mentioned therein – Proceedings of Complaint case quashed.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 406, 468 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Cheating -- Petitioner already facing prosecution u/s 138 of the NI Act -- Submitted that mere dishonour of cheque does not amount to cheating – Appeal allowed, in case of arrest petitioner be released on bail by the arresting/ investigating officer/ trial court.

(Para 1-4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount -- Appellate Court required to consider whether the case falls in the exception or not -- Appellate Court directed to re-examine the case.

(Para 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Settlement in cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the N.I. Act culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 11-13)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Legally enforceable liability -- Loan -- Money lending licence – Requirement of -- Complainant was involved in money-lending business without possessing any valid license -- Respondent/ accused used to borrow money from him -- Claim of the applicant/ complainant against the respondent is an unenforceable claim and thus, cannot be considered a legally enforceable liability u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(Para 4)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Acquittal by Trial court – Leave to appeal -- Power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 406 -- Transfer of cheque bounce complaint -- Proprietor of the Complainant Company is working at Mumbai -- Yet the cheque was presented before the Bank at Darbhanga which led to the proceeding u/s 138 of the Act initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, Bihar -- Just because the respondent/ complainant who is a permanent resident of Darbhanga or has business interest in Bihar, may not justify filing of a case in another Court when all the transactions were in Mumbai -- Project site is at Maharashtra -- Complaint transferred to Mumbai.

(Para 4-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Appellant was a mere employee, apart from being a lady, and was not the main accused -- Main accused was the sole proprietor, the allegations are primarily against him, who is no more -- No purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the appellant -- Impugned orders are set aside.

(Para 2-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of – Resignation of Director – Effect of -- Whether a appellant/ Director who has resigned from such position and which fact stands recorded in the books as per the relevant rules and statutory provisions, can be held liable for certain negotiable instruments, failing realization – Complainant not placed any materials on record indicating complicity of the appellants in the alleged crime -- Appellants had no role in the issuance of the instrument -- After the appellants have severed their ties with the Respondent-Company and, therefore, can in no way be responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time – All criminal proceedings pertaining to the appellants arising out of the complaints filed by the respondent quashed.

(Para 2-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 482 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Enhancement of compensation u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Jurisdiction of High Court -- Revision against conviction -- Complainant filed an application u/s 482 of the Code primarily seeking enhancement of compensation – No jurisdictional error on the part of the High Court in passing the order after entertaining the application u/s 482 of the Code.

(Para 2, 3)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of cheque bounce complaint – Drawer of cheque – Requirement of -- Proceeding in the complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was quashed vis-à-vis respondent No. 2 on the ground that he was not the drawer of the cheque -- Above view of the High Court cannot be faulted qua the second respondent – Special Leave Petitions dismissed.

(Para 3, 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Quashing of conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compounding of offence – Non-consent of complainant – Cheque amounting Rs.1,50,000/-, appellant deposited Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited with the Trial Court as suggested by Court --  Respondent/ complainant ought to have come forward to compound the offence – Held, Court not appreciated the stand taken by the respondent, especially when the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- more than what was ordered to be paid by the Trial Court -- Conviction of the appellant quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Amendment in title of complaint – Trial court allowed amendment of title of the complaint by replacing (Firm name) as the complainant with only (Name of Director) – Held, amendment is merely formal in nature and does not impact the heart of the case -- Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the amendment allowed in the case title and he can still raise all pleas available to him.

(Para 4, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Appeal in cheque bounce conviction – Suspension of sentence – Deposit of 20% compensation -- Appellate Court passed order in a mechanical manner without giving any reasons directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within 60 days – Direction to deposit 20% of compensation amount set aside, appellate Court directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of sentence in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case 2023 (10) SCC 446 -- Till fresh orders are passed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

(Para 8, 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Acquittal in cheque bounce complaint – Demand notice – Trial court acquitted the accused -- Notice of demand given on behalf of the appellant/ complainant was not by the authorised person and, therefore, the necessary ingredients of Section 138 of the said act were not proved -- Basic ingredients that the cheque should have been drawn by the accused for discharge of any debt or liability, was also not proved by the appellant/ complainant -- High Court also, considering the said findings, dismissed the appeal – No illegality or infirmity or perversity – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 5-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing/ deletion of name of Director -- Complaint shows that the 2nd and the 5th accused had signed the cheque -- 2nd accused was one of the Directors and fifth accused was the authorized signatory of the company -- No allegation in the complaint that petitioner signed the cheque or had anything to do with the issuance of the cheque -- Petitioner is roped in only because she is a Director in the company on whose behalf, the cheque was issued -- Held, arraying of the petitioner as the 4th accused was un-justified -- Accordingly, her deletion from the proceedings ordered.

(Para 2-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Two similar cheque bounce complaints – Two quashing petitions – In one case notice with protective order in favour of accused issued by High Court – Other Bench dismissed the other petition as devoid of merit – Order set aside, the matters are remitted back to the High Court for analogous consideration.

(Para 4-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- A complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act requires to contain  such factual averments as are necessary to satisfy the ingredients of the said provision, namely, that the cheque/money bill which has been dishonoured was issued to discharge full or partial pre-existing debt liability -- It is not be the pre-requisite of Section 138 of the N.I. Act to plead evidence in the complaint itself -- Once a specific plea has been taken, it can be later on substantiated by adducing evidence at an appropriate stage.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Settlement between parties – Quashing of proceedings – No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, maybe for the reason that there has been a settlement -- Matter is pending since 2018 – Held, once the settlement has been arrived at and the complainant has signed the deed accepting a particular amount in full and final settlement of the default amount and the fine amount awarded by the Trial Court, the proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act need to be quashed -- Appeal allowed and the proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act, along with impugned orders passed, stand quashed.

(Para 1-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Conviction in cheque bounce case – Settlement amount not paid – Cancellation of bail/ suspension of sentence – High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and suspension of sentence – No infirmity in the impugned order -- Complainant has been litigating since 2007 almost 16 years -- Appeal dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to the Complainant.

(Para 2, 16-19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal dismissed   -- Matter was thereafter settled between the parties -- High Court rejected the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Held, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and since the original complainant himself is not interested in prosecuting the proceedings, it is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to give an end to the litigation between the parties -- Order of sentence and conviction set aside.

(Para 3-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Deposit of compensation of 20% amount – Exception to -- Suspension of sentence – Ld. Additional Sessions Judge directed to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation and further cancel the order of suspension of sentence of the petitioner for non-compliance of the said order – Held, Lower Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not – Ld. lower Appellate Court directed to re-examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court – Matter remanded back.

(Para 1-5)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case  -- Demand Notice -- If in a notice while giving the break-up of the claim the cheque amount interest, damages, etc. are separately specified and these additional claims would be severable, such demand would not invalidate the notice -- In a notice of demand made under the N.I. Act demand shall not be omnibus, there must be a clear demand for the cheque amount lest notice will be invalid.

(Para 6)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case  -- Invalid Demand Notice – Quashing of summoning order -- Omnibus demand for Rs.6,50,000/- was made in addition to the demand for interest @12 per annum since the date of returning of the cheque, Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,500/- as notice charge -- Demand is omnibus as relates the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, it is not the cheque amount – Notice of demand is invalid – Summoning order quashed.

(Para 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – Order declaring the petitioner proclaimed person and the order for registration of FIR u/s 174-A IPC quashed.

(Para 9-13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 397, 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Conviction by trial Court affirmed by Appellate Court – Acquittal on compromise --  Once a settlement is being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence stands compounded -- Revision petition allowed and the judgment of Appellate Court and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court set aside -- Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 8-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143A – Cheque bounce complaint -- Interim compensation -- The Court had wide discretion to grant the interim maintenance, which could vary from 1% to 20% -- Trial Court granted the interim compensation in very casual and routine manner – No reasons recorded for granting 20% of the amount of the cheque in question as interim compensation – Matter remanded back to the trial Court to reconsider the issue regarding the payment of interim compensation.

(Para 9, 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 7, 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Prosecution of -- Drawer of cheque – Joint account -- Though, the cheque has been drawn on a joint bank account of the petitioner and her husband, but the cheque in question has been signed by her husband only and the liability regarding the dishonour of the cheque can be fastened on the drawer of the cheque -- Mere fact that the petitioner happens to be the spouse of the co-accused is hardly sufficient to condemn her as co-accused with him – Complaint and summoning order quashed qua the petitioner/ wife.

(Para 8-12)