Determining Jurisdiction of a Court in a Cheque Bounce Case | Criminal Law Attorney in Delhi NCR | Criminal Lawyer in Delhi NCR |
Criminal Lawyer in Delhi NCR | Criminal Lawyer in Delhi | Criminal Lawyer in Gurugram | Criminal Lawyer in Delhi High Court | Criminal Lawyer for Bail in Delhi NCR | Criminal Lawyer for Bail in Delhi | Criminal Lawyer for Bail in Delhi High Court | Criminal Lawyer for Bail in Gurugram | Criminal Lawyer in Saket Court | Criminal Lawyer in Dwarka Court | Criminal Lawyer in Gurugram Court | Criminal Lawyer in Delhi High Court | Criminal Lawyer in Supreme Court of India | Criminal Law Attorney in Delhi NCR | Criminal Law Attorney in Delhi | Criminal Law Attorney in Gurugram | Criminal Law Attorney in Delhi High Court | Criminal Law Attorney for Bail in Delhi NCR | Criminal Law Attorney for Bail in Delhi | Criminal Law Attorney for Bail in Delhi High Court | Criminal Law Attorney for Bail in Gurugram | Criminal Law Attorney in Saket Court | Criminal Law Attorney in Dwarka Court | Criminal Law Attorney in Gurugram Court | Criminal Law Attorney in Delhi High Court | Criminal Law Attorney in Supreme Court of India |
“The jurisdiction of a Court in a cheque bounce case is determined where the cheque is presented. Cheque bounce case is a quasi criminal case which is bailable and compoundable in nature. There are criminal defenses and legal remedies available to the accused in a cheque bounce case. It does not matter where the cheque is/are issued but what matters is/are where the cheque is presented for encashment.”
The Negotiable Instruments Act (as amended in 2015), and the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, established that, the jurisdiction for bringing a complaint under section 138 of the Act would be the location of the drawee bank. “Logically, the place, site, or venue where the judicial investigation of the case and the trial of the offence should take place should be confined to the region where the drawee bank is located,” as reaffirmed in the judgment relating to Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.(Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009). Further, following the modifications, the Court in the case of Sh. Vikram Monga v. Sh. Sanjay Dhingra (CC No. 22884/2016) in para 13 of the judgment held that under section 142(2),the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act will be looked into and prosecuted only by the Court with local jurisdiction:
If the cheque is delivered to encash it from the account, the case would be filed in the branch where the holder or payee, as the case may be, has presented the cheque for the payment, at the time; or
After the cheque has bounced, the payee will notify the drawer that he will file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881. If the drawer does not clear the payment within 15 days of receiving the legal notice, the payee will file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881. There is no standard structure for preparing such notifications, as the purpose is simply to tell the drawer that a case will be filed against him for non-payment.
The following items would be included in the demand notice:
- A statement confirming that the cheque was submitted to the bank within the validity period of the cheque (3 months).
- A statement detailing the debt and the circumstances surrounding its occurrence.
- The demand notice should also include all the details on the dishonoured cheque, such as why it was dishonoured, and so on.
- The amount of money that the drawer must pay within 15 days of getting such notification.
Authored By: Adv. Anant Sharma & Swayamsiddha Das