Cheque bounce case under 138 - summons served - maiden name

use of married name or maiden name is immaterial. That does not have any value

Dear Sam,

If her maiden name has changed after marriage,why did she sigh the cheques with the surname of her parents?What is her correct name in he bank account,clarify.

Agree with Deepak

The case has to be proved beyond doubt at many points that is  a) there was legal liability b) cheque was actually given by the accused from his account , presented  to the bank of the complainant  and returned  for want of funds e) proper dully authorized  legal notice was given f) such legal notice was received by the accused g) thereafter proper pleadings are made and  all documents are attached at first instance while filing the case.

Even if the presumptions are there in NI ACT the accused has legal right to rebut them which is more simple , sure and easy., and complainant  make mistakes on one or more  points/ steps., in over confidence.

The cheques belonged to her bank account from unmarried days - that is why it is dormant -never used after marriage - her signatures were from before marriage - but the cheques stolen and misused by brother after many years of marriage

The cheques belonged to her bank account from unmarried days - that is why it is dormant -never used after marriage - her signatures were from before marriage - but the cheques stolen and misused by brother after many years of marriage

Then the cheques will be having a binding.Why didn't you give the other facts in your first posting itself,that the cheques were stolen and her brother had misused them?The only thing is that contest carefully.

Maiden name, account dormant is of no use in defence here, but cheque stolen and used by brother is relevant.  However, it is to be noted when the cheque stolen and misused came to notice and naturally the signature on the cheque should be forgery.  What steps were taken when cheque stolen and misused was known.  Whether the cheque was signed blank before stealing.   That apart is there any nexus between drawer and payee and was it in discharge of any liability of drawer to the payee and of drawer on behalf of her brother to the payee.  Look into all these details and take a defence.

Sir Kishtaiah, has given a good feed back on the matter.