Sec 138 ni act

Moot court topic has to be put to your professor / coach / tutor.

You are correct that ordinarily, the trial court acquits after a full trial. 

However, the court may consider other factors, such as: -

Whether the nickname on the cheque is a valid alias or a common practice - Whether the drawer was aware of the payee's full name - Whether there was any fraudulent intent or collusion It is not necessarily unfair for the court to proceed with the trial, as the judge needs to examine the evidence and arguments from both sides before making a decision. 

The court may consider your arguments and dismiss the case if it finds that the ingredients of Section 138 are not met. 

I am of the similar opinion to that of expert senior sir Dr. J. C vashista.

It clearly appears to be an academical question.

thanks sir,

As per Section 142 (a) of the NI
Act, no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable
under section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by
the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of
the cheque.

payee name should same as in bank account .perhaps -there is place to be cheque bounced in 3rd name i.e nick name

Yes, the query is hypothetical. The querist does not even have the basic knowledge of Procedure under CrPC.

I had a case similar to the above where I was helping the accused. When the accused raised this question in the court the judge asked the complainant to give his reply. The complainant sought time to reply. The case was adjourned to another date. The complainant did not appear at the adjourned date. The case was adjourned several times and the complainant and his lawyer continued to remain absent. Then the accused sought dismissal of the case. And the case was dismissed.

thanks ramani ji ,

 in clearing of cheque -change in single alphabet -feeding of payee data is non applicable.hence nick name /short name is not allowed in transcution of cheque without doing some wrong .thus payee and collecting bank can do misdeed-but court will not allow such wrong doing .shyam lal garg may not be alike s l garg.

Dear Reader,

If there is a cheque drawn in the nickname, but the account with the bank is in his full name, the cheque will not become void. Indian Law, especially M. S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (2006), has held that if the identity of the payee is clear and well-established and can be verified, then the cheque has no infirmity for payment. The Courts have emphasized the question of whether the cheque could be reasonably identified to be a cheque of the intended payee, even if it carries a nickname.

In this case, if it can be ascertained from the bank records who is the payee, then it would most likely be sustained. The trial court may also dismiss the case for the reason that there is not enough proof establishing the identity of the payee or the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not established.

However, if the dishonor of the cheque was purely technical, as with a mismatch in names, the courts are likely to relegate such technicalities to the background and instead focus on the substance of the matter, as established by K. K. Verma v. Union of India (2007), wherein it is held that the true intention behind the cheque and its payment shall prevail over the technicality.

Hope this helps, if you have any questions, reach out to me at sankalpt44@gmail.com

The ratio of judgement cited by Mr Sankalp Tiwari as, "M. S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (2006)," has been misinterpretted, which do not provide qua identity of drawee of the cheque since the same has to be same as recorded with the payee's bank but not in the nick-name.

Please correct me if my interpretation is otherwise.

There are persons like Sankalp Tiwari who are posting AI generated replies. It is inherent there are inconsistencies.

My replies arent AI generated, apologies for the inconsistencies. 

shri tiwari ji ,

                      thanks for reply . i wi;; loke to quote a case -which is fit in query .HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM,CRL.MC NO. 983 OF 2018,ARVIND SINGH RAJPOOT vs INTERSIGHT HOLIDAYS PVT. LTD.the court dismissed the case being the complainant being in another name----prima facie, it appears that the present
complainant has no locus standi to prosecute the second accused in terms of Section 142(a) of the N.I.Act and as such, the complaint is liable to be quashed.

being payee name ,drawer name wrong  ,yet allowing complaint -the default word would disappear in court.hence ,complaint should be exactly as appears name on cheque .