Stop payment of check

Any case of cheque bounce  (NI 138)  can be won by the accused if diligently perused from initial stage. It is  a myth that once a cheque is bounced conviction is imminent .

 The complainant has to pass many many and many legal hurdles to achieve this.

 1) Prove legal liability 2) Prove notice 3) frame proper pleadings in the complaint 4) produce all the evidence with the complaint 5) Prove cheque was actually given to the complainant 6) Prove its bounce against the complainant not against any body else. This is a big catch and ignored by many most of the time.

Accused  suffer only due to guilt complex and initial lethargy .Power of defense is power of negative which is  perpetual and immense.

file a police complaint against these persons and contest the 138 case in the court ...... no other options available to u ......

Notice necessary or not?

Please advise after reading this. Extract from Madras High Court Judgement read like this:

37. In the light of what is stated above, the answer to the question is, statutory notice to every person, including the director, who is sought to be prosecuted, is mandatory.

Now read this:

17. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation. As observed inBhaskaran's case (supra), if the 'giving of notice' in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the 'receipt of notice' a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium to avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act.

Para 17 is SC judgement Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3910 of 2006) Decided On: 18.05.2007

Madras High Court Judgement: CRL.O.P.No.5108 OF 2002

Please help me for my action required.now as per this messages I have to pay the amount evenif I have not taken it or any proprty.Otherwise My wife will be convicted ......imprisoned????

I Agree with 

JSDN -advocate 

One has to prove law full legal liability against drawer, failing to which provisions of 138 will not attract. 138 is used mostly to threat the victim and generaly by fear of Court Victim compromises. But if the case is dealt in proper manner by following  guide lines give in 

"Krishna Janardhan Bhat  Appellant v. Dattatraya G. Hegde Respondent 

2008 STPL(DC) 387 SC = 2008 CRI. L. J. 1172 = 2008-BC-2-44 = 2008-DCR-1-374 = 2008-SCC-4-54 = 2008-AIR(SC)-1325 = 2008(1) CCC-983 (S.C.) = 2008(1) Civil CC-716 (S.C.) 

CORAM : S. B. SINHA AND H. S. BEDI, JJ.

Date of Decision :11-Jan-2008 "

mere producing of cheque is not enough. He has to prove lawful liability also,  You should read this judgment and follow it with your lawyer. 

Rightly guided.

Thanks vaishaya ji and support from kapoor saheb.

Just tell me how to read these judjement from internet?

Any case of cheque bounce  (NI 138)  can be won by the accused if diligently perused from initial stage. It is  a myth that once a cheque is bounced conviction is imminent .

 The complainant has to pass many many and many legal hurdles to achieve this.

 1) Prove EXACT  legal liability equivalent or less than value of cheque that too on the day when the cheque was given .2) Prove notice and all its contents .3) frame proper pleadings in the complaint 4) produce all the evidence with the complaint 5) Prove cheque was actually given to the complainant BY THE ACCUSED .6) It may have been given post dated but not blank dated.

6) Prove its bounce against the complainant not against any body else. This is a big catch and ignored by many most of the time.

Accused  suffer only due to guilt complex and initial lethargy .Power of defense is power of negative which is  perpetual and immense.

SO WHY BOTHER FOR CITATIONS- EVEN OTHERWISE ENOUGH SCOPE TO WIN.

The amount of the check was available in the account and it was stopped before they produced with the reason (I am no more intersted to pay as i have decided not to make the deal).

Here there is nothing I have taken from him ...on the contrary I have purchased land that costing 7.5 lacks just two days before to them.As i have decided not to purchase their illegal land and stopped the check and deal,Now they are falsly argiung that I have taken loan from them for my home expenditure.

try

www.indiankanoon.org

It has a google like interface on your queries it would give judgements, save what you need.

Dear

Vaishaya ji and Kapoor saheb,

Now we got clearances to fight the case in Section-205 and also applying to sqash the Sec-138.

what else can be done?

Regards

Chinmaya

You did not send a legal notice to the payee. Did you?