naveen yadav (hr head) 15 February 2013

Cheque bouncing

Dear All,

I am Naveen Yadav working as Head-Hr in an engineering firm. 10 days ago I received a notice from a lawyer on behalf of someone unknown(whom the lawyer claims to be his client), claiming that his client has given me a sum of 3lakhs ruppees to start a business and that I had given him a cheque of the same amount as a sureity. Further it claims that the cheque is of Standard Chartered Bank, Noida.

From what I can remember is that one of my previous employersdid opened an employees salary account with Standard Chartered Bank in 2004, but it was never operational. I mean the bank people came and got the bank account opening forms signed by the employees, but after that there was no communication with them. We never received any account opening confirmation or atm cards or any cheque book for that matter.

Suddenly after 9 years I get this notice from somebody unknown. The address of the complainant is of a very distant village, which I heard for the first time. Under these circumstances am I liable to be tried unde the Negotiable Instruments Act. Please advise keeping in mind the the following points :

1. I don't know the persons who claims to have given me the money and I have never visited the place mentioned.

2. The notice says that the cheque bounced because the account was closed. I dont even know whether the said account exsists or not, or even if its on my name or not.

3. It claims to have given me the money for doing some business. I never had a business of my own. Also no specific date is mentioned in the notice as to when and where the money was given to me.

4. Even though if he has the so called cheque, it does not contain my signatures or my handwriting on it, coz I didn't give it to him.

5. I tried to contact the bank about the so called cheque and all they could tell me was that the account is closed. Nothing about... how and when or by whom?

Please advise can I be tried under the NI Act, if yes then on what basis. If no can I sue that person(the complainant).

Waiting for your valuable guidance...

Regards

Naveen

Reply Follow

10 Replies

MADURAI LAWYER (LEGAL CONSULTANT) 15 February 2013

Dear Sir,

You are not liable uner S.138 of N.I.Act. However, you have to send a reply legal notice by R.P.A.D. denying all the allegations found therein against you and state your intention to file civil as well as criminal cases against the person on whose behalf the said demand notice has been issued to you. For more information, you can speak to me on 9842197857 or write to info@jeevaganadvocate.com

https://www.jeevaganadvocate.com/

naveen yadav (hr head) 15 February 2013

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your prompt and valuable guidance.

Just one more question - Can I file a police complaint against that person for using such cheques and threatening to file a case against me?

Would definitely get in touch with you if any further guidance is required.

Regards

Naveen

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 16 February 2013

First find all facts otherwise any slip will be counter productive.

1) Get statement of bank account.

2) Find details of the party on whose behalf notice is issued.

3) Do also some home work by actually visitng the place that how the cheque came in possession of the party.

Than only with assistance of a good advocate file police complaint / criminal case.

Aashish George (lawyer) 17 February 2013

1) it does not matter if you know or dont know the person or have or have not visited the place of incident

2) it does not matter if you know such an account exists or not

3) again your knowledge of the money or transaction or date does not matter here, what matters is that the notice describes the amount and that you borrowed money. that matters.

4) if you are sure the cheque in question is not yours then you have nothing to worry about.

5) account gets close automatically, (being an HR head you should know this) if not in use, so, no surprise there.

finally, nope! u cannot be tried for 138, cos there is no endorsement as described in section 3 of the act, there is no liablity described in the notice. the so called lawyer who sent you the notice seems unaware or might have a fake degree cos everyone here knows that in order to hold the accused liable the complaiant has to prove laibility of the accused and security cheques cant be used in 138, its just stupid. you have to remember, these things have to be decided by the judge not by you and me.

appear in court if the proceeding is initaited and please o please dont try to save money when it comes to court proceeding and appoint the cheapest lawyer you can get, because if he makes a mistake you might end up in a soup. so dont be a hero and try and save some money for temporary benifit. it will cost you heavily. and about filing a case againts complainant, i would suggest you should not bother. neither you have the time or the energy to chase these people and keep running around courts.

naveen yadav (hr head) 18 February 2013

Dear All,

As advised by you I have sent a reply to the notice denying all allegations through a local lawyer.

In the meantime I had tried to contact the bank about the cheque and the account number, but all they could tell was that the account had been closed and nothing is reflecting on to their systems.

To be specific no account details exsist on their systems. Now, the question is how can I get hold of the account details?

Do I need to file an RTI application, if yes then under what sections of the RTI act can I get a quick response.

Is there any specific format for the RTI application or a normal application would do.

Do I need to address the RTI app to the branch manager or to the PIO at the Head Office. Also if the relevant RTI format is available online please provide the link or upload the format.

Regards

Naveen

Aashish George (lawyer) 19 February 2013

if i were you, i will wait for the summons from court. why are you worried? if you have not even issued the cheque? the complainant will bring the bank clerck in evidence and you can also request the court to call for clerck of your bank to testify. why the hoopla?

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 19 February 2013

Mr Ashish George you are making very harsh and undegnified comments without knowing the full facts see example-

might have a fake degree

More over probably you have not faced the music of a criminal trial so you are suggesting the person to face it.

Aashish George (lawyer) 19 February 2013

i dont understand? you assume and presume things yet you are pointing out my lines? i am free to express myself and i am not perticularly pointing or taking names like you, and you cant deny people dont do that can you? its my humble request that you keep me out of this and dont play a whistle blower here. there are people who misguide litigants and make them fear judicial proceedings in order to gain monetary benifits. if you have a clear conscience and are aware of your rights, you dont have to be afraid. courts are to punish the guilty not punish the innocent.

that being said, please keep me out of your comments. i am not taking names or pointing a finger at anyone. i am sure you must have many people to give advice, instead of wasting your time trying to correct a small time lawyers like myself.

naveen yadav (hr head) 20 February 2013

It seems the lawyers are busy fighting among themselves and nobody cared to reply to the question that i asked or to provide me with the guidance that i sought from the learned lawyers......

Aashish George (lawyer) 21 February 2013

naveen, i know you are worried and scared but if you have not even issued the cheque then you really dont need to worry. if the complainant is a fraud as u mentioned earlier, he will not file a case. because any lawyer he approaches will tell him about the future of the case. that is why i suggested that you have to be patient and wait for the sumons to come to you. the other party is free to start a legal proceeding and there is nothing you can do to stop him. so just wait and watch.