Cheque dishonored due to issuence of stop cheque order

Thank you Mr Aggarwal for your insight.

Can someone also itterate the scenarios where the provision of stop cheque can be exercised. Well if there is provision of for issueing stop cheque then there must be some scenarios where it is not illegal.

1. I would agree with the part related to you being charged  u/s.138 in light of what has been sited. Hence-

a. Stop payment and

b. cheque issued on your behalf

Can not be grounds of defense.Provided you can prove that-

-the cheque was not issued but stolen or it was a case of forgery or

- However I would not take the above route until and unless I have very strong grounds to show the above in my defence and hence may look at the following alternatives-

2. Prove that there is a bonafide dispute with the compliant in a manner which would help me to escape from the rigiours of S.138-

- This can be through a proper rebuttal to the "Notice of Dishonour" in a manner which would  then be the duty of the complianant to establish the consideration and the debt due by documentary/oral evidence to the satisfaction of the Court trying the matte r(No debt or liability existed by seeking the help of S.118 and 139 through rebuttal).

- You could also file counter criminal compliants invoking S.409,415 and 420 of CrPC;

- Seek specific performanceof the contractual obligations under Specific Relief's Act.

But the above would not stop the action u/s.138 incase the complianant decides to go ahead in spite of your treats or criminal compliants.

Chandan, are you saying that i will be tried even though i didn't issue the cheque?

 S.138 has great significances from a legislative point of view,this this section makes a civil transaction into a criminal transaction and even does not require mens rea as is required for criminal prosecution. I would not go into it as you are not from the legal faternity.

However to answer your query-

1.For S.138 to take effect the cheque in question should have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liabiltiy.

Hence the ground for you is to disprove the above that no legally enforceable debt or liability arose and thereby S.138 gets bluntted.

      You have not issued the cheque is of no consequence, as you are the beneficary and can be linked to the cheque issuance and ownership.

The payment was made against parking, power backup and edc (external development charges) demanded by the developer/builder of my flat. Like i stated before the cheque was drawn from a relative's bank account not mine.

Mahesh Ji ,plz. study this link of mine,certainly would be helpful,also request to give me feedback

https://lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Re-138-N-I-A-IS-DEAD-ALMOST-29868.asp

esp.  this link would make it ckear to U that stop payment/account close does not fall under 138 NIA,feedback plz.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159343/

Does anyone know the scenarios where stop check can be exercised without violating the law?

Stop payment perse is not offense even if SC ruling.

The basic question will always be there :-

1) Was there legal liability against the issuer of cheque , even payment stopped.

2) Even if the actual debtor issued the cheque and stopped payment due to defficiency is service, it is a valid deffense.

If NI 138 case is filed against you and you recieve court summons , immediatlt file private criminal complaint u/s 420 ,405 & 406 criminal breach of trust.

Thanks for your precious time Shashikumar Ji. I would also like to know the scenarios where stop cheque facility can be exercised without any violation to the law. Offcourse if such a facility exists then it must exist for some lawfull purpose.

Laws are made by men so other set of human beings find out ways to come out of it. Till now there is no fullproof system that any particular law can be made to address all types of situations.

I will give you a simple example.

JUST READ -     GOD IS NOW HERE.

This can be also  read as -  GOD IS NO WHERE.

This is the skill of the defense advocate.

Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability of another person - Person issuing the cheque is liable u/s 138 of the Act and not the person whose liability was discharged. 2010(4) Criminal Court Cases 314 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge the liability of another person - Cheque dishonoured - Person issuing the cheque is liable u/s 138 of the Act and not the person whose liability was discharged. 2010(3) Apex Court Judgments 026 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge the liability of another person - Person issuing the cheque is liable. 2010(4) Civil Court Cases 208 (S.C.)

Hemant are you saying my relative who issued the check is liable not me?

Mr. Mahesh N

 Read details  furnished by u in piece meal.  Note that u/s 138 of NIA the person who signed & stopped pasyment is liable u/s 138 & no other person. But ur relative may be acquited on the plea that he does not owe any Amt. to the Contractor but he will have to face the trial. It is advised that u try to settle the mattere with the contractor else he will not register the flat in ur name & the amount paid by u sofar will remain hanging besides ur relative would be required to face long drawn trial proceedings. Before giving reply to notice u/s 138 contact any Ld. lawyer.      (CGSANGAMNERKAR (m-09875018961)   

Mr Hemant agrawal has done lot of hard work in finding out citations , but basic question will remain which has to be proved in court that the person who issued the cheque was to cover the liability of other,  otherwise nothing can be done.