Misuse of chq in ni act
nitin gatagat
(Querist) 08 April 2013
This query is : Resolved
dear sir
i had given 3 blank chqes to a pvt ltd company @ contract. at the end time dispute arises. company used one of the blank cheque and filled amount and date in their handwriting. i received notice u/s 138 of n.i.act by them. i also replied them,
meanwhile before cheque bounced , i had done stop paymrnt of chq and also informed them by notice that dont misuse particular cheque. after receving notice they used cheque of oneday before that notice ,i had the mail of the co. reguarding demand of blank cheque.and xerox copy of given blank cheque ...
pls tell me is my side strong enough to fight......
Advocate M.Bhadra
(Expert) 08 April 2013
Supreme Court of India
Vijay vs Laxman & Anr on 7 February, 2013
Author: G S Misra
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 2013
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 6761/2010)
VIJAY ..Appellant
Versus
LAXMAN & ANR. ..Respondents
Coming then to the present case, the absence of any details of the date on which the loan was advanced as also the absence of any documentary or other evidence to show that any such loan transaction had indeed taken place between the parties is a significant circumstance. So also the fact that the cheque was presented on the day following the altercation between the parties is a circumstance that cannot be brushed away. The version of the respondent that the cheque was not returned to him and the complainant presented the same to wreak vengeance against him is a circumstance that cannot be easily rejected. Super added to all this is the testimony of DW1, Jeevan Guru according to whom the accounts were settled between the father of the complainant and the accused in his presence and upon settlement the accused had demanded return of this cheque given in lieu of the advance. It was further stated by the witness that the complainant’s father had avoided to return the cheque and promised to do so on some other day. There is no reason much less a cogent one suggested to us for rejecting the deposition of this witness who has testified that after the incident of altercation between the two parties the accused has been supplying milk to the witness as he is also in the same business. Non- examination of the father of the complainant who was said to be present outside the Court hall on the date the complainant’s statement was recorded also assumes importance. It gives rise to an inference that the non- examination was a deliberate attempt of the prosecution to keep him away from the court for otherwise he would have to accept that the accused was actually supplying milk to him and that the accused was given the price of the milk in advance as per the trade practice in acknowledgement and by way of security for which amount the accused had issued a cheque in question.
In the totality of the above circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified in its conclusion that the prosecution had failed to make out a case against the accused and in acquitting him of the charges. With these observations in elucidation of the conclusion drawn by my worthy colleague, I agree that the appeal fails and be dismissed.
CA Ayush Agrawal
(Expert) 08 April 2013
Since You said Matter is Disputed, so this will take you both to court.
so its better to settle mutually if possible.
if not then every thing is OK, whatever done by company is right, and also you right from your side.
lets court decide.
and secondally, you just put one letter to company stating that pls dont use that cheques, untill and unless out matter get solved so that you atleast can escape from negotiable act 1938.
Thanks.
I already replied the same.
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Sec-138-of-ni-act-384176.asp#.UWKvTqL-GxA
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 08 April 2013
Bhadra has properly addressed your query.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 April 2013
If the same is a repeated query then none should have addressed it.
