I had a business & during times of financial crisis had had borrowed Rs. 10,00,000/- from a lady financier, who had taKen 5 blanK cheques of mine & she had given it to me @ 10% interest. & even after me clearing the entire amount with interest total amounting to Rs. 14,00,000/-, she did not return Ma blanK cheques bacK. Also I did not Know it would cause such a big problem to me. Now after clearing the above said amount, she came back to me claiming I need to pay her Rs. 3,50,000/- more & when I did not agree for it, she said that she Knows what to do with Ma cheques & also she had told us that she would present Ma cheque & when it returns, she said, she will lodge a case against me. Now, I had to incur a huge loss, & after which I closed down the company & now in search of a job. Now, the lady has given a complaint against me to the Human Rights President for Rs. 21,00,000/- & that person had called me & Ma Father to some office & used abusing languages & also said he would put both Ma DAD & Myself behind bars. He also would fit Ma DAD in a non bailable case. I am divorcee with a responsibility of 2 small Kids on Ma shoulder. What do I do to defend Myself?
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
pls do not worry,a call from humanrightpresident has nothing to do with cheque bounce case,
as far a your 5 cheques with her is concerned ,it will not be any help to her as you already cleared her balance.if she is asking for more 3.5 there must be legal outstanding liablilty,if there is no liability then you do not have to worry,as she can only claim the amount which you are legally bound to pay
GOODnoon Mr. Rajeev Bari, thanKu so much I feel so relieved now. But, the problem is that I have paid her Rs. 5,80,000/- by cheque and the remaining by cash. So, how do I settle this problem now? Also, the human rights president literally abused us & he has asKed us & has asKed us to meet him tomoro again with a solution. Finally, he also said, 'K finally tell us how much can U pay? I will taKe U to the police station & will cieze Ur Passport & hand it over to the commissioner. We will see to it that U are not going out any where. He infact was very harsh.
how have you received 10lac,all by cheque or some part by cheque and some cash,what receipts do you have that you have paid the amount you claim or have you given any receipt to the lady for the amount you have received from her,kindly explain in detail
When you have cleared his amount then why you are annoyed about it,let her do anything, keep proof of payment and produce before concerened Authority for discharge from liabilities.
GODnoon Soumya Kundu ThanKu
GODnoon Rajeev, No, I had received all payments only by cash & I have not signed any receipt. She only has few blanK cheques & blanK stamp paper of mine. Regards Rashmi HK
have you taken any receipts from her for the amount you have paid .when did you take this loan .
no
then how do you prove that you have made payments
GODnoon Rajeev Bari, thanKs for Ur advice no sir, i donot have any receipts for the amount paid, Rs. 5,80,000/- I have paid by cheque & the remaining amount by cash. I donot have any receipts for the amount paid in cash. But, When she had presented 2 cheques of Rs. 5,00,00/- each, which was not filled in by me, it was filled by the financier herself. But, one good thing is that the branch manager from Ma banK had called me to inform that 2 cheques of mine has been presented & i had sent a mail to the Branch Manager to maKe a stop payment as it was a faKe cheque from a financier & I had also mentioned that I would return the cheque booK of this account with the remaining cheque leaves & that not to entertain any cheques from this account as it is been misused by private financiers. The BanK Branch Manager did the needful will this be of any help to me?
cheques cases are very technical as regard to time frame. because every stage involves time frame. as far as your case is cocerned u have face five cases of cheque bounce cases. for brief u may call.
have you received any notice from her till now,if not then wait and discuss this after receiving notice from her,then i will be better position to advise you
At the outset, bear in mind that except a court of law no other authority, including the President of India, can call you insofar as this case is concerned. So you should not go again to the President of Human Rights Association if at all he calls you. The only remedy for this lady is before a court of law, and no other authority.
She can file a case of cheque bounce against you, but you will get sufficient opportunity to contest the same through your lawyer. Do not be cowed down by threats of being implicated in any non-bailable offence. She can be jailed if she files a false case against you.
Mere fact that you paid the amount partly in cash does not lead to an inference that you have defaulted in repaying the full amount of loan along with interest. You did commit a blunder by not securing the repayment of loan through a legal document. It is always advisable to seek professional advice from a lawyer on payment of his consultancy fees before entering into and discharging a monetary liability of this nature as a lawyer would have acquainted you with the recourse by following which you could have repaid the loan and also plugged any escape route through which she may have lodged a false claim of this nature.
As of now all can suggest to you is to engage a lawyer beforehand so that he may chalk out your defence in the event of she filing a case against you.
Dear Querist
First of all you should file a complaint against so called Human Right Commissioner before National Human Right Commission.
secondly, as you mentioned that you have paid the amount through cheque and cash and she is not ready to return you cheques then send a legal notice to her with all the detail and claim your cheques and harassment compensation too. if she is not ready to return your cheque after receiving the notice file a criminal case against her for extortion u/s 383/384 of IPC before court or police.
thirdly, if she is not licencee money lander then her case will not be strong you can fight the case on merit.
fourthly, you father have no concerned regarding this matter so nobody can file any case against your father.
Feel Free to Call
Ask the Human Rights commission president not to call you. File a police complaint against the caller as you don't know his true credentials. What is his name?i have heard of some unscrupulous elements claiming to be member/ president of Human Rights Association.
Do not meet any one. Hire a Advocate and liaison with them only through your Advocate.
Only legal action they can take against you is filing check bounce case. In that event, court will sent summons.
Usually Court/commission wont call the parties. They send summons/notice
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 1 of 15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 13th
March, 2013
Pronounced on: 8
th
April, 2013
+ CRL.L.P. 491/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 492/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 493/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 2 of 15
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 494/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 495/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 496/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 3 of 15
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 497/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 498/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 499/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 4 of 15
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 500/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 501/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 502/2011
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 5 of 15
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 503/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 504/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 6 of 15
+ CRL.L.P. 505/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 506/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 507/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 7 of 15
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 508/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 509/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 510/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 8 of 15
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 511/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 512/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 9 of 15
+ CRL.L.P. 513/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Leave Petitions be registered as Criminal Appeals
No.461/[deleted]/2013.
3. These Appeals arise out of 23 separate judgments of even date whereby
23 complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881(the Act) were dismissed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate(MM) primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was in the
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 10 of 15
business of advancing loan; he did not possess any money lending licence
and thus the complaint was barred under Section 3 of the Punjab
Registration of Money-lender’s Act, 1938 (the Act of 1938). The learned
MM opined that although the cheques were issued in discharge of
liability or debt, yet in view of the provisions of the Act of 1938, the
debts were legally not recoverable. Thus, the learned M.M. dismissed the
complaints and acquitted the Respondent.
4. In the 23 complaint cases, various cheques have been issued which are
extracted hereunder:
Crl.L.P. No. Cheque No. Date of Cheque Amount(in `)
491/[deleted]
000047
002375
10.12.2008
14.12.2008
01.09.2008
10,000/-
1,00,000/-
42,000/-
492/[deleted]
000002
000003
09.08.2008
08.09.2008
10.09.2008
30,000/-
18,000/-
18,000/-
493/[deleted]
007582
120184
24.09.2008
24.09.2008
26.11.2008
44,000/-
24,000/-
6,667/-
494/[deleted]
000050
14.11.2008
26.12.2008
7,500/-
10,000/-
495/[deleted].01.2009 10,000/-
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 11 of 15
121335
121336
121340
207659
10.01.2009
14.01.2009
02.01.2009
05.10.2008
10,000/-
10,000/-
1,00,000/-
26,700/-
496/[deleted]
000041
000049
08.11.2008
02.12.2008
18.10.2008
1,00,000/-
10,000/-
10,000/-
497/[deleted]
000034
000035
000036
21.11.2008
28.11.2008
11.11.2008
26.11.2008
7,500/-
7,500/-
7,500/-
7,500/-
498/[deleted].09.2008 12,000/-
499/[deleted]
000045
000046
21.11.2008
28.11.2008
07.12.2008
1,00,000/-
1,00,000/-
1,00,000/-
500/[deleted]
007584
007585
25.09.2008
28.09.2008
27.09.2008
24,000/-
48,000/-
30,000/-
501/[deleted]
002413
002411
04.09.2008
06.09.2008
05.09.2008
40,000/-
40,000/-
40,000/-
502/[deleted]
000008
000009
12.09.2008
13.09.2008
17.09.2008
48,000/-
12,000/-
12,000/-
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 12 of 15
503/[deleted]
207698
007581
15.12.2008
25.12.2008
26.11.2008
10,000/-
10,000/-
36,000/-
504/[deleted]
000004
000004
09.09.2008
10.09.2008
11.09.2008
48,000/-
48,000/-
36,000/-
505/[deleted]
000042
000043
03.10.2008
07.11.2008
14.11.2008
7,500/-
1,00,000/-
1,00,000/-
506/[deleted]
207677
207696
25.09.2008
24.10.2008
28.12.2008
40,000/-
16,500/-
10,000/-
507/[deleted]
000026
000027
000037
28.10.2008
11.10.2008
20.10.2008
20.11.2008
7,500/-
7,500/-
7,500/-
7,500/-
508/[deleted]
000012
000014
18.09.2008
25.10.2008
26.10.2008
18,000/-
11,000/-
14,000/-
509/[deleted]
002422
002420
15.09.2008
23.09.2008
19.09.2008
12,000/-
40,000/-
24,000/-
510/[deleted]
007593
007594
20.09.2008
03.10.2008
02.10.2008
10,000/-
40,000/-
40,500/-
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 13 of 15
511/[deleted]
007587
007588
28.09.2008
09.09.2008
01.10.2008
30,000/-
42,000/-
30,000/-
512/[deleted]
000021
000023
30.10.2008
03.11.2008
08.10.2008
30,000/-
16,500/-
1,00,000/-
513/[deleted]
216765
216776
008778
01.10.2008
04.10.2008
11.10.2008
26.09.2008
40,000/-
21,000/-
10,500/-
24,000/-
5. To analyse whether the complaints under Section 138 were barred under
the provisions of the Act, it will be apposite to extract the provisions of
Section 3 of the Act of 1938, which reads as under:
“3. Suits and applications by money-lenders barred, unless
money-lender is registered and licensed. Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other enactment for the time
being in force, a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a
loan, or an application by a money-lender for the execution
of a decree relating to a loan, shall after the commencement
of this act, be dismissed, unless the money-lender-
(a) at the time of the institution of the suit or presentation of
the application for execution; or
(b) at the time of decreeing the suit or deciding the
application for execution-
(i) is registered; and
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 14 of 15
(ii) holds a valid licence, in such form and manner as may
be prescribed; or
(iii) holds a certificate from a Commissioner granted under
section 11, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is
instituted, or the decree in respect of which the application
for execution is presented; or
(iv) if he is not a registered and licensed money-lender,
satisfies the Court that he has applied to the Collector to be
registered and licensed and that such application is
pending; provided that in such a case, the suit or application
shall not be finally disposed of until the application of the
money-lender for registration and grant of license pending
before the Collector is finally disposed of.”
6. Thus, Section 3 of the Act of 1938 starts with a non-obstante clause and
makes the filing of any Suit or any Application for recovery of loan or
execution of a decree relating to a loan by a money lender to be not
maintainable unless the money lender is registered under the Act and
possessed a licence for the same.
7. The loan as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act of 1938 specifically
excludes an advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as
defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, other than a promissory
note. The instant cases relate to an advance made by the Petitioner to the
Respondent on the basis of the cheque which admittedly is a negotiable
instrument. Thus, the bar of Section 3 of the Act of 1938 is not attracted
to a loan given on the basis of a negotiable instrument, like a cheque. I
am supported in this view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in
Gajanan & Ors. v. Seth Brindaban, 1971(1) SCR 657. Thus, the learned
MM fell into error in dismissing the complaints and acquitting the
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 15 of 15
Respondent solely on the ground that the complaint was barred under the
provisions of the Act of 1938.
8. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained; the same are
accordingly set aside.
9. The cases are remanded back to the Court of MM concerned for its
decision in accordance with law.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned MM concerned on
30.04.2013.
11. Trial Court record be returned immediately.
12. A copy of the order be transmitted to the Trial Court.
13. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 08, 2013
Before she proceeds with the cheque bounce case. you file a complaint before the nearest police station that the 5 cheques have been illegally held by the financier even though I have cleared the loan amount. The police will call you and the financier to the station settle the matter.
