Here are the facts of a case:
a) a close relative of mine has stolen a very old blank but signed cheque, bank account dormant for 10 years, that was signed 12 years back by me.
b) after obtaining the cheque illegally, he began to blackmail me for money.
c) I did not immediately go to the police because of family prestige and thought elders in the family can resolve the matter internally to our family.
d) The idiot filed a cheque bounce case against me for 10 lakhs, ignoring the family prestige in our mohallah.
He is the sour apple in our family.
e)To give validity to his case, he claims that he gave me a "friendly loan" of Rs. 10 lakhs about 2 years back and I gave him a postdated cheque. Name, date and amount on the cheque have been filled out by him, not by me.
f)No paperwork or IOU exists for the so imagined friendly loan (cash, gold etc:) exists anywhere and we never conducted any business transaction or ever exchanged any cheques. The idiot never paid one naya paisa in income taxes until today. He has not supplied any evidence of the huge amount of Rs 10 lakhs being loaned out to me. No cheque, no proof of bank transfer, nothing at all.
Can you please quote cases in higher courts where it was established that unaccounted black money loan does not translate into a legal liability. It seems that the section 138 was incorporated to encourage more transactions by cheque so black money flow could be halted in the economy. But, what if the imaginary loan which cannot be established is further imagined to be cash? I have filed a FIR for the stolen cheque on receiving the cheque bounce notice.
