• False cheque bounce case by financier

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?
Asked 6 years ago in Criminal Law from Bangalore, Karnataka

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

Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

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

Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

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.

Soumya   Kundu
Advocate, Kolkata
50 Answers

4.7 on 5.0

have you taken any receipts from her for the amount you have paid .when did you take this loan .

Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

then how do you prove that you have made payments

Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

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.

Avdhesh Chaudhary
Advocate, Greater Noida
565 Answers
20 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

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

Rajeev Bari
Advocate, New Delhi
1506 Answers
92 Consultations

4.6 on 5.0

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.

Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
27276 Answers
805 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

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.

Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
27276 Answers
805 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

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.

Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
27276 Answers
805 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

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

Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
5402 Answers
262 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

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

Sandeep Hegde
Advocate, Bangalore
415 Answers
137 Consultations

4.8 on 5.0

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.461/2013 - 483/2013.

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 `)

491/2011 000048

000047

002375

10.12.2008

14.12.2008

01.09.2008

10,000/-

1,00,000/-

42,000/-

492/2011 000001

000002

000003

09.08.2008

08.09.2008

10.09.2008

30,000/-

18,000/-

18,000/-

493/2011 002423

007582

120184

24.09.2008

24.09.2008

26.11.2008

44,000/-

24,000/-

6,667/-

494/2011 000032

000050

14.11.2008

26.12.2008

7,500/-

10,000/-

495/2011 121334 06.01.2009 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/-

496/2011 000039

000041

000049

08.11.2008

02.12.2008

18.10.2008

1,00,000/-

10,000/-

10,000/-

497/2011 000033

000034

000035

000036

21.11.2008

28.11.2008

11.11.2008

26.11.2008

7,500/-

7,500/-

7,500/-

7,500/-

498/2011 002419 16.09.2008 12,000/-

499/2011 000044

000045

000046

21.11.2008

28.11.2008

07.12.2008

1,00,000/-

1,00,000/-

1,00,000/-

500/2011 007583

007584

007585

25.09.2008

28.09.2008

27.09.2008

24,000/-

48,000/-

30,000/-

501/2011 002412

002413

002411

04.09.2008

06.09.2008

05.09.2008

40,000/-

40,000/-

40,000/-

502/2011 000007

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

503/2011 207697

207698

007581

15.12.2008

25.12.2008

26.11.2008

10,000/-

10,000/-

36,000/-

504/2011 000004

000004

000004

09.09.2008

10.09.2008

11.09.2008

48,000/-

48,000/-

36,000/-

505/2011 000025

000042

000043

03.10.2008

07.11.2008

14.11.2008

7,500/-

1,00,000/-

1,00,000/-

506/2011 002424

207677

207696

25.09.2008

24.10.2008

28.12.2008

40,000/-

16,500/-

10,000/-

507/2011 000018

000026

000027

000037

28.10.2008

11.10.2008

20.10.2008

20.11.2008

7,500/-

7,500/-

7,500/-

7,500/-

508/2011 000010

000012

000014

18.09.2008

25.10.2008

26.10.2008

18,000/-

11,000/-

14,000/-

509/2011 002418

002422

002420

15.09.2008

23.09.2008

19.09.2008

12,000/-

40,000/-

24,000/-

510/2011 007591

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

511/2011 007586

007587

007588

28.09.2008

09.09.2008

01.10.2008

30,000/-

42,000/-

30,000/-

512/2011 000019

000021

000023

30.10.2008

03.11.2008

08.10.2008

30,000/-

16,500/-

1,00,000/-

513/2011 007595

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

Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
5402 Answers
262 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

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.

Nagalakshmi S.
Advocate, Bangalore
16 Answers
22 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer