Fake cheque bounce case

If there is legal liability other directors will also liable.

Scenario 1: If the chq has been issued to discharge a legal liability or debt, then the payee/holder of the chq can file criminal complaint u/s 138 of NI act, against the Company and all Directors/CEO etc u/s 141(1) (which deals with offences by Companies).  But sec 141(1) also specifies that any person is not liable for punishment "if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had excercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence". Therefore, if the complainant files case u/s 138, you will have to prove that the offence was committed without your knowledge, or that you had excercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. Further, for forged signatures on a chq, there is no protection to the bank passing the chq, and the bank will have to compensate the a/c holder for all loss & damages suffered. I think you should file criminal complaint for forgery & cheating etc against the other Director, and intimate the complainant about the issue as well as the bank. These steps will hold your position in good stead if complainant files case u/s 138. I also think you should see if any other chq has been signed by the other Director similarly. Pls consult an advocate on the matter.

Scenario 2: If the chq has not been issued to discharge a legal liability or debt, then complaint u/s 138 will not hold good. Yes, the payee may proceed against you & you may face trial, in which you & the Co.needs to prove that chq was not issued to discharge a legal liability or debt. Pls consult an advocate on the matter.

file a complaint u/s-420/467 ipc before the concern court!

1) It is not child s play that any body against whom action is initiated can file counter cases u/s 420.

2) The cheque law presumes liability. It is reverse provision compared to any other law that is unless proved otherwise the liability is presumed.

3)  The cheque is from your account and it was in your custody. If what you say  is even  accepted than first you have to prove that how that only one cheque went in custody of other person who has forged your signatures.

4) And unless you can prove specific motive  no body will listen to you.

5) And you have to also prove who is that person who has forged your signature.

sir,

chequebook was in the name of the directors of the company,

its in the office and i have not even signed any cheques since 5 years.

they have the cheque book with the name of the directors and have fake signatures of mine and presented to the party and now it got bounced.

party and the director both are on the smae side.what can i do to stop such activities

dear all ,

please tell me if the complainanat have not mention the name of the other directors as he want only me to suffer than what can be our action to include other directors also as someone else is the managing director of the company

There must be some circumstances or motives that why case is filed against you only.

It appears that the cheque is from your company account, so primary accused is the company and then the director/s follow. Now the problem is another director/s has not been made as co accused, so you have to face the music. The truthful defense that you did not sign the cheque, looks quite feeble, but actually it is quite strong, because once you deny the execution of the cheque itslef, then the prosecution has to prove that it was executed by you. Prosecution may seek the help of your Bank in getting your sign proved or can take the help of forensic expert. Now to defend yourself not only you have to deny the liability, you have to dispute the sign as well and most importantly you have to explain how the cheque reached complainant. You can raise the issue that in last 5 years you have not issued any cheque and in principle some other director was responsible for finance aspect.

Unfortunately almost all type of dishonor including mismatch of sign falls in S.138, but it does not take away the right of accused to dispute the liability and execution of the cheque. Infact presumption is available under S.139 only after execution is either admitted or proved. Sleep well, do some homework, and find out the circumstances under which this cheque got received by complainant and how other directors went to complainant side. You will see many more defense points which can be rightly put forward by your advocate.  

The Apex court has clearly ruled that complainant must prove the liability reasonably, this is very important.