Cheques fraud

You have to appear before court and ask for bail. Generally court asks for  at least two surieties and personal bonds. After bail you may defend yourself. Don't avoid the first date, otherwise warrant may be issued against you. There is no need to worry consult with your lawyer.

first you go to appear in before the court, and apply bail application, after got bail you proceed, at the time of trial you may prove as it is to fraud

Once process is issued you have to face the trial. Appear in the court and give bail and than seek legal help.

First of all take a legal help from a lawyer of your region show him a notice of summon and then appeare before the court with him and ask for a bail and after getting a bail prove yourself before the court that you have not committed any fraud taking a support of  your counsel.  

Agree with experts

hello Mr, there is no need to worry, consult your near advocate,

Please appear before the court  through the counsel.  File a petition for recall of the warrant. If the court recalls the warrant no need for the surity.

I asked one counsel and he said there is no such thing to petition in lower court. Can you elaborate more. This is in Mumbai.

Please see Cr.P.C    S.70(2).

Yes you can apply for cancellation of warrant and time for giving surity.

Warrant will be cancelled but be ready to give regular bail that means surity having permananet address such pproperty , flat shop or even job will do.

You have been treated leniently.  Only notice has been pasted police have not dragged you to thana in broad day light which they can do in  case there is a notice from court and you do not attend and they received NBW from court. Mr JSDN, Arvind, RV Naidu, TN Pandey, S Chede, Arunagiri have advised you to defend before court. You must do so unless interested to do experience Jail life.

Your said you have already consulted a lawyer who told you that there is no case in court.  Then is it that police is transgressing their powers in non-cognizable case.  You have to consult another lawyer with papers.

 Mr Sarath Kumar advised that “hello Mr, there is no need to worry, consult your near advocate” but I will say that unless you appoint a lawyer need you have  to worry.

If you did not sign the cheque, it is you who have to challenge it.  It is you who have to inform the suspected thief.

Who is the person sending you the notice. Did you have any dealing with him, it is relevant

Sir,

Please don't revive dead threads.

7/8 years back cheque was stolen. on bouncing cheque or dishonour cheque specific act is present N.I.Act,1881 as ammended. a cheque was stolen 7/8 years back , cannot be given recently and cases of N.I Act  precisely to be filed within certain limitation period which starts and run  as one after another/ to give notice 30 days, after notice wait for 15 days, after 15 days then 30 days time is limited for filing N.I.Act case u/s 138. here is what case 420 of IPC? there is conflict on 138 and 420 either one of any avail equally or in substitution?

if N.I Act is preferred , it can be said a cheque must be dishonoured within 6 months max of issue; if six month from issue concerned no question arises for cheque. Is there an FIR of GD? then file a case now implying his name ; he will compromise the matter with you, and he will go with you to court,generally found so. If  filed u/s 138 of N.I.Act then it must be within limitation; on you descripttion such case cannot be taken cognizance of. You may in such case apply to H.C. for quashing the proceeding itself u/s 482 Cr.P.C.. There is other provision also but need more discussion.there is some taken for granted laws without proper explanation and rationale. If magistrate takes cognizance wrongly , complainant files wrongly and accused is taken to court while cause of action expired , then why accused should suffer only ? what is of procedures u/s 202/203 for magistrate to apply? an accused from remote place suffers a lot in all matters, even a pvt. company employee can be terminated on summons or warrant; no court will be able to order the job regained  unless govt.job it is. If magistrate wrongfully take congnizance, petitioner is happy to be successful in harassment of accused then whose motif is fulfilled? Justice? Legislature? Complaiinant's motif to harrass ; magistrate acting inefficiently are free to act  in like manner is a motif of Justice?This is the irrational views that passed everywhere that accused  must appear even though cognizance is wrong that unscrupulous litigant  are free to harrass people by unnecessary appearence order. Examplary fine should be set even upon magistrates too acting negligently by avoiding mandaroty looking into mandatory factors cause unscrupulous complainant succeed to motif of harrassing and suffer the accused.