1. Yes, very much. The manageability of the case would be tried during trial only.

2. If it is proved that signatures was not genuine and it was indeed stolen  or there was no debt ..

3. Talk to your advocate on this. 

1) you have to contest case filed by complainant 

2) prove your innocence during trial 

3) if you are able to prove cheque is forged and there is no debt due and payable case would be dismissed 

1.	case is completely maintainable.
Not sending notice on 1st time bounce is not mandatory. 
Notice on 2nd time bounce is legally valid. 
A cheque can be presented multiple times within validity.
Even yesterday only we sent such legal notice for cheque bounced 2nd time. 

 


2.	You already took the ground in reply notice. 
Complainant have to prove that there was legally enforceable debt. 
You have to prove that how cheque was stolen and why you not filed police complaint. 



3. Stolen cheque is very weak defense. 

You not filed police complaint, you only stopped cheque. 

Watch these vidoes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqw4RQy6DL0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igVvAfltkEc

1. If the signature of the accused is admitted  then along with other proofs to prove that this cheque was issued against the legally liable debt, then the case would be maintainable, it depends on how strongly the complainant prosecutes the case. 

2. While the trial of the case itself has not started yet, why do you think that it will be dismissed.

Let the accused file his counter on the basis of the evidences he relies upon, you can challenge the same during trial proceedings and examination of witnesses.

3. There are more than thousands of citations for various occasions in cheque bounce case, you would be requiring a proper citation suiting to the grounds what you rely upon only at the time of final argument, you can ask your advocate to find a suitable citation at that time.  

1. The law is too well settled now that even the dishonour of cheque due to 'stop payment instructions' will attract the rigours of Section 138 of NI Act.

2. There is no cloud on the maintainability of the case.

3. It goes without saying that in a prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act there is a presumption that cheque in question was issued to diacharge a legally enforceable debt. The onus will be on accused to prove that there was no debt.

1. No, since the cheque is not issued towards discharge of an existing debt. The debt/liability has to be admitted for affixing the responsibility of the accused. 

2. That the cheque was stolen; and was not issued in pursuance of any sale agreement.

3. Under Negotiable Instruments Act, burden of proof on accused to prove cheque was not issued for discharge of debt or liability: 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8498 of 2019) and Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8564 of 2019)

Decided On: 09.03.2021

Appellants: Sumeti Vij
Vs.
Respondent: Paramount Tech Fab Industries

Sumeti Vij vs. Paramount Tech Fab Industries (09.03.2021 - SC) : MANU/SC/0167/2021

Dear Sir,

1) Yes the case is maintainable as per the facts stated. 

2)  Section 138 matter will be dismissed for Want of Prosecution, forged cheque, where cheque was illegal acquired etc.

Thank you

Dear Sir

First be informed that the magistrate court has no powers for summarily disposing the case without trial. It has to record evidence and give its judgment. Before trial is started the accused may approach High court for quashing on the technical points and loopholes in the case.

1. Case is very much maintainable. The ground that cheque is stolen and forged is most common ground taken by accused. The accused has to establish as how the cheque went in the possession of complainant. Simply claiming stolen will not help him and the cheque is returned for stop payment. When the cheque is first returned for signature differs, the accused made mistake in stopping the payment of cheque next time.
2. It has to be dismissed on merit.
3. There are thousands or citations and judgments on both sides. Unless all facts are known no judgment can be suggested.

1. If the said cheque was presented within 3 months from the date of written on it , then the complainant can send the notice within 30 days from the date of bounding 

- Further if there is no compliant lodged before the police then this case is maintainable on the ground of liability 

2. Depend upon the trial of the case , where you will have to prove that this cheque was not issued by you and due to that the signature was not obtained by the complainant. 

- Legally a cheque can be present for encashment many times within its validity period , but after sending legal notice the said cheque bar for presentation. 

Complainant would have to produce sale agreement to prove his case 

2) you can cross examine complainant and call upon complainant to produce agreement for sale 

3) section 145(2) of NI provides (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.

1. If the complainant has not produced the documentary evidences to substantiate his case, his prosecution may not be maintainable, he may not be able to prove his complaint allegations against the accused.

However the accused at the time of cross examination of the complainant who is deposing evidence as prosecution witness, can shoot out the questions related to this topic and get his allegations nullified if the complainant has failed to give proper reply for not producing the said documents before court.

2. If the complainant has denied the relevant documents pertaining to this case, then the accused can produce those documents in his possession at the time of defence evidence while he is depsing evidence  as defence witness. 

3. The court will not impose any condition as mentioned by you, it is for the prosecuting party to prove his case and it isf for the accused to defend his interests on the basis of the documentary evidences in his support and the merits in his side. 

This case is maintainable as of now. Youbhave to prove that there was no existing debt/liability and the cheque is forged.

Thecase would be dismissed on these grounds.

You should file documents wrt sale agreement etc. To show that the cheque was obtained by fraud and no debt/liability existed.

The case under s.138 is a summary suit and documents can be filed by you in reply.

1. Why should the accused demand it? Let the complainant not produce it, and this omission will go against him.

2. The accused can exhibit the photocopy of the agreement if he brings the original to the court.

Dear Sir,

1) The complainant is required to bring such agreement to prove his case.

2) As per 145. Evidence on affidavit. - 2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.

You can file an application to court under this section. 

3) The accused will get chance in cross examination to question the complainant  and his evidence.

1. As per law , complainant has to produce the evidence of liability of the cheque payment 

- Hence, the complainant has to produce such evidences that the said cheque was issued by the accused for liability to business transaction . 

2. Accused can produce the said documents after moving an application under section 145(2) of N.I.Act and also under section 313 CrPc

3. The complainant will have to prove the same during his evidence.